{"id":61154,"date":"1999-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999"},"modified":"2018-11-13T02:49:17","modified_gmt":"2018-11-12T21:19:17","slug":"mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999","title":{"rendered":"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Srinivasan<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D.P.Wadhwa, M.Srinivasan<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMATHEW M.TOMAS &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t16\/02\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nD.P.Wadhwa, M.Srinivasan\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>SRINIVASAN J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  appellants\t  purchased   certain\tlands\twith<br \/>\nbuildings thereon in 1977 for a sum of Rs.  2,45,000\/-.\t The<br \/>\nInspector of  Income  Tax valued them at Rs.  3,24,000\/- and<br \/>\nlater in 1979 the Departmental Valuation Officer valued them<br \/>\nat Rs.\t7,24,000\/-.  The Inspecting Assistant  Commissioner,<br \/>\nAcquisition  Range,  Ernakulam\tordered\t acquisition  of the<br \/>\nproperty on 31.3.1981.\tThe appellants filed  an  appeal  to<br \/>\nthe Tribunal  by  order\t dated\t31.101981.    The appeal was<br \/>\nallowed and the proceedings were cancelled.  As against\t the<br \/>\nsaid  order, the Revenue filed an appeal under Section 269 H<br \/>\nin the High Court of Kerala.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tDuring the pendency of the appeal, Chapter XX-C\t was<br \/>\nintroduced in the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n&#8216;Act&#8217;) by  Finance  Act\t of  1986  w.e.f.   October I, 1986.<br \/>\nUnder Section 269 RR, Chapter XX-A Was made inapplicable  in<br \/>\nrelation   to\ttransfer  of  an  immovable  property  after<br \/>\nSeptember 30, 1986.   The  Central  Board  of  Direct  Taxes<br \/>\n(hereinafter  referred to as &#8216;C.B.D.T.&#8217;) issued Circular No.<br \/>\n455 dated 16.9.1986.  The  relevant  part  of  the  Circular<br \/>\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t   &#8220;With  a  view  to  achieve early finalisation of<br \/>\n\t   proceedings under the existing  Chapter  XX-A  of<br \/>\n\t   the Income &#8211; Tax Act, 1961, the Board has decided<br \/>\n\t   that with effect  from April 1, 1986, acquisition<br \/>\n\t   proceedings\t under\tsection\t 269C  will  not  be<br \/>\n\t   initiated in respect of an immovable property for<br \/>\n\t   which the apparent consideration is Rs.  5  lakhs<br \/>\n\t   or  less  and  that where acquisition proceedings<br \/>\n\t   have been initiated\tby  issue  of  notice  under<br \/>\n\t   section  269D, the proceedings will be dropped if<br \/>\n\t   the\tapparent  consideration\t of  the   immovable<br \/>\n\t   property is below Rs. 5 lakhs&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>3.\tWhen  the  appeal was taken up by the High Court the<br \/>\nappellants herein contended that the acquisition proceedings<br \/>\nhad  to\t be  dropped  as  the  consideration  was  only\t Rs.<br \/>\n2,45,000\/-.   The matter was referred to a Full Bench of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court   for   decision   on   the\t  question   whether<br \/>\nAdministrative Circular\t issued\t by  the C.B.D.T.  under the<br \/>\nAct to supplement the  statute\tcan  supplant  the  same  by<br \/>\ndeviating  or  detracting or going beyond or contrary to the<br \/>\nstatutory provisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe Full Bench opined  that  the  Circular  was\t not<br \/>\napplicable   to\t  the\tcase  on  hand\tas  the\t acquisition<br \/>\nproceedings  were  over\t by  the  order\t of  the   Competent<br \/>\nAuthority passed on 31.3.1981.\tThe Full Bench observed that<br \/>\nthe   pendency\t of  the  proceeding  before  the  Competent<br \/>\nAuthority  was\tnecessary  for\tthe  applicability  of\t the<br \/>\nCircular  and  as  no  such proceedings were pending in this<br \/>\ncase, the Circular had no application.\t  Consequently,\t the<br \/>\nFull  Bench  declined  to  answer  the question referred and<br \/>\ndirected the matter to be posted before the  Division  Bench<br \/>\nfor hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tAgainst\t the  said  order  of  the  Full  Bench\t the<br \/>\nappellants have preferred  this\t appeal\t on  Special  Leave.<br \/>\nWhen  leave  was  granted, the hearing of the pending appeal<br \/>\nbefore the High Court was stayed.  The only question  to  be<br \/>\nconsidered  is\twhether\t the Circular issued by the Board is<br \/>\napplicable to proceedings pending in the Appellant stage  or<br \/>\nnot.   In other words, the question is, whether the Circular<br \/>\nwill  not  apply  to  proceedings  in  which  the  Competent<br \/>\nAuthority  had\tpassed an order earlier even though the same<br \/>\nis subject matter of appellate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tChapter\t XX-A  of the Act was introduced by Taxation<br \/>\nLaws (Amendment) Bill, 1971 to implement the recommendations<br \/>\nof the Wanchoo Committee with a view to\t prevent  or  arrest<br \/>\nevasion of tax through under statement of value of immovable<br \/>\nproperty in  sale  transactions.    The\t provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nChapter\t enabled  the  Central\tGovernment  to\tacquire\t any<br \/>\nimmovable property  having a fair market value above Rs.  25<br \/>\nlacks in cases\twhere  the  consideration  declared  in\t the<br \/>\ninstrument  of\ttransfer was less than the fair market value<br \/>\nof  the\t property  on  the  date  of  acquisition   of\t the<br \/>\ninstrument.   That  power was available in cases where there<br \/>\nwere reasons to believe that  the  consideration  agreed  to<br \/>\nbetween\t the  parties  had  not\t been  truly  stated  in the<br \/>\ndocument with a\t view  to  facilitate  tax  evasion  by\t the<br \/>\ntransferor or  the  transferee.\t   It was also provided that<br \/>\nproceedings could be initiated only if the fair market value<br \/>\nexceeded  the  declared\t consideration\tby  more  than\t 15%<br \/>\nthereof.  The  Govt.   found that the provisions of the said<br \/>\nchapter were not as effective as  intended  in\tthe  Finance<br \/>\nBill of\t 1986.\tChapter XX-C was introduced and Chapter XX-A<br \/>\nwas deleted.  It was  proposed\tthat  no  proceedings  under<br \/>\nSection\t 269 C shall be initiated in respect of the property<br \/>\ntransferred after Sept.\t 30, 1986.  In the new Chapter\tXX-C<br \/>\ntransfer  of any immovable property of a value exceeding Rs.<br \/>\n5 lacks or as amy be prescribed was prohibited except  after<br \/>\nan  agreement  for  transfer  between the transferor and the<br \/>\ntransferee at least three months before the intended date of<br \/>\ntransfer.  The agreement shall be in writing in the form  of<br \/>\na statement  by\t each  of  the parties to the transfer.\t The<br \/>\nstatement should  contain  in  the  prescribed\tmanner\tsuch<br \/>\nparticulars  as\t may be prescribed and shall be furnished to<br \/>\nthe Appropriate Authority constituted by the  Central  Govt.<br \/>\nunder  that  Chapter  within such time as may be prescribed.<br \/>\nSection 269 UD of the  Act  provides  that  the\t Appropriate<br \/>\nAuthority  after receipt of such statement may, for reasons,<br \/>\nto be recorded, order for  the\tpurchase  of  such  moveable<br \/>\nproperty by  the  Central  Govt.  for an amount equal to the<br \/>\namount of apparent consideration.  If such an order  is\t not<br \/>\nmade within a period of two months from the end of the month<br \/>\nin  which  such\t statement  is\treceived  by the Appropriate<br \/>\nAuthority the power of the  Appropriate\t Authority  to\tmake<br \/>\nsuch an\t order\tshall lapse.  The provisions of Chapter XX-C<br \/>\nare thus in the nature of preemptive purchase by the Central<br \/>\nGovt.  to the proposed sale and they were applicable to\t the<br \/>\nproperties, the value of which exceeded Rs.  5 lacks.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn  view  of  the  change  in  the  legislation, the<br \/>\nC.B.D.T.  thought fit to issue Circular No.  455,  obviously<br \/>\nwith  an object of achieving the earlier finalization of the<br \/>\nproceedings under Chapter XX-A.\t The Circular is undoubtedly<br \/>\na beneficial measure  in  order\t to  bring  an\tend  to\t the<br \/>\nuncertainty  of\t litigious  proceedings\t with  reference  to<br \/>\nproperties, the value of which does not exceed Rs.  5 lakhs.<br \/>\nthe language of the circular does not in any manner indicate<br \/>\nthat it will apply only to proceedings\tpending\t before\t the<br \/>\nCompetent Authority.\tThe mere fact that reference is made<br \/>\nto the initiation of the proceedings by notice under  269  D<br \/>\ndoes  not limit the operation of the Circular to proceedings<br \/>\nimmediately following such notice and culminating  with\t the<br \/>\norder of  the  Competent  authority.\tIf  proceedings\t are<br \/>\npending before the Tribunal in appeal and  before  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt\ton   further   appeal,\tthey  are  also\t acquisition<br \/>\nproceedings of the proceedings initiated  by  the  Competent<br \/>\nAuthority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(i) That the legal pursuit of a  remedy,  suit<br \/>\n\tappeal\tand  second appeal are really but steps<br \/>\n\tin a series of proceedings all conceted\t by  an<br \/>\n\tintrinsic  unity  and are to be regarded as one<br \/>\n\tlegal proceedings&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Hence  we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the<br \/>\nview expressed by the full bench of the High  Court  in\t the<br \/>\njudgment  under appeal that the Circular would apply only to<br \/>\nproceedings pending before the Competent Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tEven  before  the  matter was considered by the Full<br \/>\nBench of the Kerala High Court\tin  the\t present  case,\t the<br \/>\nDelhi  High  Court  had\t occasion  to decide the question in<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income Tax Vs.\tRattan Chand Sood &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tIt is well settled that the word &#8220;Proceedings&#8221; shall<br \/>\ninclude the proceedings at  the\t appellate  stage.    It  is<br \/>\nsufficient  to\trefer  to  the\tjudgment  of  this  Court in<br \/>\nGarikapati Veeraya Vs N.  Subiah Choudhry &amp; Ors.   AIR\t1957<br \/>\nS.C.540 wherein the Court said at page 553 :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(i) That the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit appeal<br \/>\n\tand second appeal are really but steps in  a  series<br \/>\n\tof  proceedings\t all connected by an intrinsic unity<br \/>\n\tand are to be regarded as one legal proceedings.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Hence we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with\t the<br \/>\nview  expressed\t by  the full bench of the High Court in the<br \/>\njudgment under appeal that the Circular would apply only  to<br \/>\nproceedings pending before the Competent Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tEven  before  the  matter was considered by the Full<br \/>\nBench of the Kerala High Court\tin  the\t present  case,\t the<br \/>\nDelhi  High  Court  had\t occasion  to decide the question in<br \/>\nCommissioner  of  Income  Tax  Vs.  Rattan  Chand   Sood   &amp;<br \/>\nOrs.(1987)166  I.T.R.  497.  After referring to the Circular<br \/>\nand extracting the second paragraph thereof the\t High  Court<br \/>\nsaid :-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The intention of the authorities clearly  is  that,<br \/>\n\tafter  April  1, 1986, proceedings earlier initiated<br \/>\n\tbut subsisting should be dropped unless the apparent<br \/>\n\tconsideration exceeds Rs.  5 lakhs.  In\t this  case,<br \/>\n\tthe  proceedings  were\tinitiated  by  the Competent<br \/>\n\tAuthority and finalised by him in 1976.\t   But\tthis<br \/>\n\twas  subject  to orders in appeal and as a result of<br \/>\n\tthe order of the Tribunal and  the  appeal  to\tthis<br \/>\n\tcourt,\tthe  position is as if those proceedings are<br \/>\n\tpending as on date.   In  this\tcase,  the  apparent<br \/>\n\tconsideration is  only\tthe petty sum of Rs.  19,992<br \/>\n\tand it would seem, in view of the declaration by the<br \/>\n\tCentral Board of Direct Taxes and in  view  also  of<br \/>\n\tthe  various  circumstances  pointed out by us, that<br \/>\n\tthis is clearly not a case in which the\t proceedings<br \/>\n\tshould be allowed to brag on further&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tIn Commissioner\t of  Income  Tax  Vs.  Export  India<br \/>\nCorporation  (P)  Ltd.\t(1996)\t219  I.T.R. 461 the Punjab &amp;<br \/>\nHaryana High Court dealt with the matter at great length and<br \/>\nrefused to agree with the Kerala Full Bench.  After  tracing<br \/>\nthe  relevant  legislative background to the introduction of<br \/>\nChapter XX-A and XX-C and referring to the Circular and\t the<br \/>\nProvisions  thereof,  the  Division  Bench of the High Court<br \/>\nheld that the proceedings once initiated  will\tcontinue  to<br \/>\nhave  the  same\t character  until  and\tunless\tthey acquire<br \/>\nfinality under Section 269 I of the Act. The Court said that<br \/>\nthe proceedings which have been initiated by issue of Notice<br \/>\nunder Section 269 D were continuing as the Second Appeal was<br \/>\npending in the High Court under Section 269 H of the Act and<br \/>\nthus the proceedings had not come to an end. As regards\t the<br \/>\norders, instructions and directions issued by the Board, the<br \/>\nBench  referred\t to Section 119 of the Act and observed that<br \/>\nall authorities employed in the execution  of  the  Act\t are<br \/>\nduty  bound  to observe and follow such orders, instructions<br \/>\nand directions of the Board. The Bench pointed out that\t the<br \/>\nCircular  being\t a  benevolent\tone  would be binding on all<br \/>\nauthorities and\t would\tbe  applicable\tto  the\t proceedings<br \/>\npending\t at  the  appeal  state\t as  well  if  the  apparent<br \/>\nconsideration is below Rs.  5  lakhs.  We  are\tentirely  in<br \/>\nagreement  with\t the  opinion expressed by the High Court in<br \/>\nthat case.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tThe  same  High\t Court\treiterated the above view in<br \/>\nC.I.T. Vs. Gobind Ram (1996) 221 I.T.R. 892 (P&amp;H)  &amp;  C.I.T.<br \/>\nVs Gursher Singh &amp; Anr. (1997) 225 I.T.R. 725.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tThe Patna High Court has also in Competent Authority<br \/>\n(Acquisition) Vs.  Smt.\t Lalita\t Today\tAnd  Ors.(1997)\t 225<br \/>\nI.T.R.\t665 applied the Circular in pending appeals and held<br \/>\nthat the  appeals would abate.\tThe Court had also gone into<br \/>\nthe merits of the decision of the  Competent  Authority\t and<br \/>\nfound  it to be unsustainable on the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThe same view has been expressed by the Madras\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  in  Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sivan Soap Factory<br \/>\n(1997)227 I.T.R. 126 which dissented from  the\tKerala\tFull<br \/>\nBench.\tIt  accepted  the  view\t of the Delhi High Court and<br \/>\nPunjab &amp; Haryana High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\tWe are, therefore, inclined to differ from the\tview<br \/>\nexpressed  by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the<br \/>\njudgment under appeal.\tThe appeal is hereby allowed and  it<br \/>\nis held that Circular No.  455 dated 16.5.1986 issued by the<br \/>\nC.B.D.T.   is  applicable  to  all pending proceedings which<br \/>\nhave not attained finality under Section 269 I of the Act as<br \/>\ndefined in the explanation to the said Section.\t There\twill<br \/>\nbe no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999 Author: Srinivasan Bench: D.P.Wadhwa, M.Srinivasan PETITIONER: MATHEW M.TOMAS &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/02\/1999 BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, M.Srinivasan JUDGMENT: SRINIVASAN J. The appellants purchased certain lands with buildings thereon in 1977 for a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-12T21:19:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T21:19:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2024,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999\",\"name\":\"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-12T21:19:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-12T21:19:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999","datePublished":"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T21:19:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999"},"wordCount":2024,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999","name":"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-12T21:19:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mathew-m-tomas-ors-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-16-february-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mathew M.Tomas &amp; Ors vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 February, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=61154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}