{"id":7436,"date":"2009-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-17T10:15:24","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T04:45:24","slug":"ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION\n                             .....\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                                 F.No.CIC\/AT\/C\/2007\/00475<br \/>\n                                                Dated, the 27th January, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>Complainant : Ms.Sarita R. Hakki<\/p>\n<p> Respondents : Income Tax Department<\/p>\n<p>      In response to Commission&#8217;s notice dated 03.12.2008, this matter came up<br \/>\nfor hearing on 14.01.2009. Complainant was absent when called, while the<br \/>\nrespondents were represented by Md.Kaleemulla Khan, Deputy Commissioner of<br \/>\nIncome Tax &amp; CPIO, Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      The present complaint before the Commission is against deemed refusal<br \/>\nof complainant&#8217;s RTI-application dated 07.06.2007 by the CPIO and, the<br \/>\nfirst-appeal dated 23.07.2007 by the Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.    Respondents&#8217; explanations contained in their written-submission before<br \/>\nthe Commission, dated 23.05.2008 are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;2. The complainant, Smt.Sarita R. Hakki, Dharwad had initially filed<br \/>\n      an application under RTI Act in the office of the Commissioner of Income-<br \/>\n      tax, Hubli on 08.06.07. Since the matter primarily related to the transfers<br \/>\n      and postings of Officers which is effected by the office of the Chief<br \/>\n      Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Bangalore, the application was<br \/>\n      forwarded by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli to the Chief<br \/>\n      Commissioner of Income-tax(CCA), Bangalore on 14.06.2007. In the<br \/>\n      meantime, the applicant filed a fresh application dated 19.06.07 directly<br \/>\n      before the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Bangalore on<br \/>\n      22.06.07 seeking information along with same lines. Thereafter, CPIO&#8217;s<br \/>\n      order dated 03.07.07 was passed following which an appeal under the<br \/>\n      RTI Act was filed on 01.08.07 before the Chief Commissioner of Income-<br \/>\n      tax(CCA), Bangalore. The order u\/s 19(6) of the RTI Act was passed by<br \/>\n      the Appellate Authority on 11.09.07.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      3.      It is brought to the notice of the Hon&#8217;ble Commission that vide<br \/>\n      letter No.Case No.CIC\/AT\/C\/2007\/00475 dated 10.03.08, the undersigned<br \/>\n      was directed to appear before the Commission on 30th April, 2008 at 4.00<br \/>\n      PM for a hearing on the complaint filed by Smt.Sarita R. Hakki. In<\/p>\n<p>AT-27012009-01.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                      Page 1 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n       compliance, the undersigned had appeared before the Commission on the<br \/>\n      appointed day and filed a written submission.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.      From the above, it is clear that the applicant had sought the<br \/>\n      information from one authority, i.e. the Commissioner of Income-tax,<br \/>\n      Hubli who in turn had forwarded the application to the Chief<br \/>\n      Commissioner of Income-tax (CCA), Bangalore. At the same time, the<br \/>\n      applicant had also filed an application before the Chief Commissioner of<br \/>\n      Income-tax (CCA) asking for the same information which was duly<br \/>\n      furnished. Hence, the question of the information not being furnished by<br \/>\n      the Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli does not arise. Under these<br \/>\n      circumstances, it is prayed that the application filed by the complainant,<br \/>\n      both in respect of the so called non furnishing of information by the<br \/>\n      Commissioner of Income-tax, Hubli as well as against the order of the<br \/>\n      Appellate Authority u\/s 19(6) of the RTI Act, 2005 dated 11.09.2007 may<br \/>\n      be treated as dismissed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>4.    The petitioner&#8217;s rejoinder reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      &#8220;The CPIO, in his letter dt. 23.5.08, received by me on 28.05.2008, has<br \/>\n      stated that my letter dt. C.I.T., Hubli dt. 08.06.2007, and my letter to<br \/>\n      CCIT(CCA) Bangalore dt. 19.06.2007 are along the same lines and<br \/>\n      information furnished vide letter dt. 3.7.07 may be taken as compliance.<br \/>\n      However, no such statement is made in the order dt. 3.7.07.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      It is my earnest request that CIC may please peruse both the letters and<br \/>\n      see whether the information requested in both letters is same. The<br \/>\n      information sought by both the letters is different except the copy of<br \/>\n      transfer policy. Then how one can taken the 03.07.2007 letter as<br \/>\n      compliance? For example. In my letter to CIT, Hubli, I sought<\/p>\n<p>      (1)    Copy of AC\/DC transfer order dt. 01.06.2007.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (2)    Recommendations of CIT, Hubli on transfer applications (format)<br \/>\n             of Hubli officers.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      (3)    Recommendations of CIT, Hubli on request applications, (who is<br \/>\n             not supposed to give format)<\/p>\n<p>      None of the above are sought in my letter dt.19.06.2007. Therefore, it is<br \/>\n      not correct to consider 03.07.2007 order as compliance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      The remarks made appears [sic] to have been without going through the<br \/>\n      letter properly. If one has read it properly no such statement was<br \/>\n      possible. If it is taken that reply on reading the letter properly, the<\/p>\n<p>AT-27012009-01.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                     Page 2 of 4<\/span><br \/>\n        authority is trying to mislead the CIC terming that &#8216;same information&#8217;<br \/>\n       was sought. To quote from CPIO&#8217;s letter dt.23.05.2008, in para 4.<br \/>\n       &#8216;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.. At the same time, the applicant has filed an application before<br \/>\n       the CCIT(CCA) asking for the same information which was duly<br \/>\n       furnished&#8230;..&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>       In view of the above, the letter [sic] contentions are not tenable and<br \/>\n       appeal is maintainable and require adjudication.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>5.      It is accepted by the respondents that they had not furnished a reply to the<br \/>\npetitioner corresponding to the complainant&#8217;s above-mentioned RTI application.<br \/>\nIt is their submission, however, \u23af contested vigourously by the petitioner \u23af that<br \/>\nthey erroneously believed that the information requested by the petitioner<br \/>\nthrough this RTI-application had been provided to her through a reply which was<br \/>\ngiven to her in respect of another application filed by her before the Chief<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income Tax (CCA), Bangalore. Complainant claims that the<br \/>\ntwo RTI-petitions made by her were not identical and she seems to be right. It is,<br \/>\nhowever, noted that the respondents&#8217; decision to respond to only one of the two<br \/>\nRTI-applications was based upon not on their precise knowledge about what<br \/>\nthose two petitions contained, but on their erroneously believing that they were<br \/>\nlikely to be identical petitions. Respondents ought to have exercised greater<br \/>\ndiligence in attending to these two petitions according to its actual content and<br \/>\nnot on the basis of their surmise that both were identical in content.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.     However, since the deemed refusal in the present case seems to have been<br \/>\noccasioned by the respondents&#8217; belief that the requested information had been<br \/>\ndisclosed to the petitioner, the matter falls within the reasonable cause provision<br \/>\nof Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. It is, therefore, not proposed to draw any<br \/>\npenalty proceeding against the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.     Nonetheless, respondents are directed that the requested information in<br \/>\nthis RTI-application of the complainant must be disclosed to her within one week<br \/>\nof the receipt of this order free of charge. Should the complainant wish to<br \/>\ninspect the documents or files related to her RTI-query, she shall be facilitated in<br \/>\ncarrying out inspections. No charges will be levied on her for copies of the<br \/>\ndocuments which she may wish to have from the files she would inspect.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Respondents are warned to be careful in dealing with RTI-matters and<br \/>\nshould not allow their actions to be conditioned by their vague beliefs and<br \/>\nsurmises. Any recurrence of such episode in future shall be viewed seriously.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.     Complaint directed to be closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>AT-27012009-01.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                         Page 3 of 4<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p> 10.   Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                          ( A.N. TIWARI )<br \/>\n                                             INFORMATION COMMISSIONER<\/p>\n<p>AT-27012009-01.doc<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                 Page 4 of 4<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION &#8230;.. F.No.CIC\/AT\/C\/2007\/00475 Dated, the 27th January, 2009. Complainant : Ms.Sarita R. Hakki Respondents : Income Tax Department In response to Commission&#8217;s notice dated 03.12.2008, this matter came up for hearing on 14.01.2009. Complainant was absent when called, while [&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":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009 - 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\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T04:45:24+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T04:45:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1109,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T04:45:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009 - 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\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T04:45:24+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T04:45:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009"},"wordCount":1109,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009","name":"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T04:45:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sarita-r-hakki-vs-income-tax-department-on-27-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ms.Sarita R. Hakki vs Income Tax Department on 27 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/7436","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=7436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}