{"id":81254,"date":"2008-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-06T12:32:23","modified_gmt":"2019-03-06T07:02:23","slug":"commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad<\/div>\n
                                   TAX CASES No.50 OF 1998\n\n\n              Statement of case under Section 33(2)(C) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act,\n              1959 by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar Patna in the matter of\n              assessment of Sales Tax of the M\/s Janta Khad Bhandar, Dauria,\n              West Champaran for the year 1978-79 in R.A. No. 35(Pat)\/96.\n                                                ----------\n<\/pre>\n
      COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR, PATNA                     ………Appellant
\n                                             Versus
\n      M\/S JANTA KHAD BHANDAR                           ……………… Respondent\n<\/p>\n
                                              ——–\n<\/p>\n
           For the Appellant : ———————-   Mr. Harshwardhan Pd.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        Sr. Standing Counsel,
\n                                                        Income Tax
\n                                                        Mrs. Archna Sinha, Jr. Counsel
\n                                                        Income Tax Deptt.\n<\/p>\n
            For the Respondent :         ———–         None<\/p>\n
                                            P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
                 THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD<\/p>\n
                               THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN<\/p>\n
Prasad &   Ranjan, JJ:             This case has come up for our opinion on<\/p>\n
              a reference being made by the Patna Bench of the<\/p>\n
              Income Tax Tribunal<\/p>\n
                             The assessee M\/s Janta Khad Bhandar was<\/p>\n
              assessed to the income tax for the assessment year<\/p>\n
              1978-79 as association of persons by the assessing<\/p>\n
              officer      under        section        144\/148    of      the    Income    Taxt<\/p>\n
              Act,     (hereinafter           referred       to     as    the    Act).     The<\/p>\n
              assessment in the case was originally made on 3rd of<\/p>\n
              March     1984       on   a    taxable      income         of   Rs.7,06,430\/-.<\/p>\n
              However, it was reopened on 6.4.1984 under section<\/p>\n
              146 of the Act on the basis of an application filed<\/p>\n
              by     the    assessee.           Despite       several           notices,   the
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
assessee did not appear before the assessing officer<\/p>\n
and the case was thereafter fixed for the last time<\/p>\n
on 12.2.1987 but on the said date also the assessee<\/p>\n
did not appear.           The assessing officer completed the<\/p>\n
assessment under section 144 of the Act, at the same<\/p>\n
total   income       of      Rs.       7,06,430\/-        as     originally<\/p>\n
assessed.          The assessee challenged the order of<\/p>\n
assessment     in         first       appeal         filed    before    the<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal) and took as many<\/p>\n
as ten grounds to assail the order of assessment.<\/p>\n
However, there was no challenge to the issue                            of<\/p>\n
notice under section 148 read with section 147 of<\/p>\n
the Act nor any argument was advanced before the<\/p>\n
Commissioner in the first appeal on the said issue.<\/p>\n
Resultantly there is no decision by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
in respect of the issue of reopening under section<\/p>\n
147 (a) and notice under Section 148 of the Act.<\/p>\n
              In    the     second          appeal    filed    before   the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred<\/p>\n
to as the tribunal) on 22.9.1990 no ground was taken<\/p>\n
challenging        the    issue        of     reopening       and   notice.<\/p>\n
After   filing       of     the       appeal     it     was    posted   for<\/p>\n
consideration on several occasions and                         it was for<\/p>\n
the first time on 30th August 1995, assessee through<\/p>\n
its counsel filed letter raising the following three<\/p>\n
grounds;\n<\/p>\n
                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
      (1)     For that the assessing officer has erred
\n              in jurisdiction under section 147 (a) as
\n              the condition precedent is absent in the
\n              appellant’s case.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2)     For that the A.O. has erred in issuing
\n              notice under section 148.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3)     For that issue of notice under section
\n              148 is without jurisdiction and abinitio
\n              void.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The tribunal heard the assessee and the<\/p>\n
revenue on the aforesaid issues and relying on the<\/p>\n
judgement of this Court in the case of Hindustan<\/p>\n
Malleables     &    Forgings         Ltd    Versus      Commissioner          of<\/p>\n
Income Tax (191 ITR 110) came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the    assessee      is    entitled        to     raise    a     point,      not<\/p>\n
raised or considered by the lower tax authorities.<\/p>\n
The tribunal observed that there are divergent views<\/p>\n
on the issue of entertaining a point for the first<\/p>\n
time before the tribunal but as the Bench of the<\/p>\n
tribunal falls within the jurisdiction of this court<\/p>\n
the    decision      rendered        in     the    case     of    Hindustan<\/p>\n
Malleables     &    Forgings         (Supra)       is   binding         on   it.<\/p>\n
Accordingly it held that the ground urged before the<\/p>\n
tribunal      for    the    first        time,     though        not    raised<\/p>\n
either      before        the       assessing       officer            or    the<\/p>\n
Commissioner of appeal, is fit to be entertained for<\/p>\n
the   first    time       before     it.    On     merit    the    Tribunal<\/p>\n
concluded     that    action        of     reopening       and    notice      is
\n                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
illegal. While doing so the Tribunal observed that<\/p>\n
sales     tax    assessment       order        does    not     speak    of<\/p>\n
anything    about     suppression         of    turn       over   by    the<\/p>\n
assessee nor there is any whisper in this regard in<\/p>\n
the assessment order on the basis of which notice<\/p>\n
under     section 148 read with section 147 (a) could<\/p>\n
have been issued.          The tribunal held that there is<\/p>\n
no nexus to the material possessed by the assessing<\/p>\n
officer     raising     reasonable             believe        about     the<\/p>\n
nondisclosure of material fact by the assessee in<\/p>\n
the statement of chargeable income.                    Accordingly it<\/p>\n
held that the issue of notice under section 148 read<\/p>\n
with section 147(a) of the Act is illegal and bad in<\/p>\n
law. Consequently framing the assessment, pursuant<\/p>\n
to such illegal notice is wholly illegal and void.<\/p>\n
                On these facts the tribunal has referred<\/p>\n
the following questions for our opinion:<\/p>\n
           (i)      Whether       on      the         facts       and<\/p>\n
           circumstances of the case the income<\/p>\n
           tax appellate tribunal was correct in<\/p>\n
           admitting additional ground of appeal<\/p>\n
           raised by the appellant for the first<\/p>\n
           time before it?\n<\/p>\n
           (ii) Whether the income tax appellate<\/p>\n
            tribunal       was    justified           in   holding<\/p>\n
            that     the      issue       of     notice       under<\/p>\n
            section 148 was illegal and bad in
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
               law         and        consequentially                 the<\/p>\n
               assumption        of    jurisdiction             by    the<\/p>\n
               A.O. for framing assessment pursuant<\/p>\n
               to    such     illegal        notice        is    wholly<\/p>\n
               illegal and void?\n<\/p>\n
               Mr.       Harshvardhan    Prasad       appearing         on<\/p>\n
behalf    of    the       Revenue     submits       that    a    ground,<\/p>\n
neither raised before the assessing officer nor<\/p>\n
in appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax<\/p>\n
can not be raised for the first time before the<\/p>\n
tribunal.           He    submits     that    the     matter         stands<\/p>\n
concluded by the judgement of Full Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Bihar State Road Transport<\/p>\n
Corporation V. Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a> (149<\/p>\n
I.T.R. 208).             He has drawn our attention to the<\/p>\n
following passage:\n<\/p>\n
                         “All these cases are a pointer
\n     in one direction that on the facts and
\n     in    the       circumstances       of     the    case      the
\n     assessee was not entitled to raise these
\n     new grounds as a question of law for
\n     which       the      foundational        facts     or,      for
\n     that matter, any relevant fact were not
\n     brought on the record either before the
\n     ITO or before the AAC.                  I, therefore, am
\n     constrained           to hold that the Tribunal
\n     was right in not allowing the additional
\n     grounds         with    regard     to     the    exemption
\n     claimed by the assessee under s. 11 of
\n     the Act to be raised before it”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
                Despite           service         of     notice       on   the<\/p>\n
assessee, no body has chosen to appear in its<\/p>\n
behalf.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                We      have       considered            the       submission<\/p>\n
advanced         by Mr. Prasad and we do not find any<\/p>\n
substance in that                  and the authority relied on<\/p>\n
is     clearly         distinguishable.                  We    are    of   the<\/p>\n
opinion that the tribunal has full jurisdiction<\/p>\n
and it is in its discretion to entertain for the<\/p>\n
first time new question which can be investigated<\/p>\n
without taking further evidence.                          In our opinion<\/p>\n
it   is     a    matter      within         the    discretion         of   the<\/p>\n
tribunal. If in the opinion of the tribunal,                                   a<\/p>\n
ground      though          not       raised      either       before      the<\/p>\n
assessing            officer       or      in     appeal       before      the<\/p>\n
Commissioner           is    a        substantial         point      touching<\/p>\n
upon      the        merit       of       the     case     and       for   its<\/p>\n
adjudication           materials           are     available,         nothing<\/p>\n
prevents the tribunal to adjudicate and consider<\/p>\n
a ground raised for the first time.                            In the case<\/p>\n
of Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Supra)<\/p>\n
the Full Bench of this Court has observed                                     as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
                “Tribunal has full jurisdiction and
\n       it       is    in     its      jurisdiction            to     refuse
\n       permission to an appellant to raise for
\n       the first time before it a new question
\n                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
        of   fact         which     cannot        be    investigated
\n        without taking further evidence”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              In    the        facts    of    the      said    case       this\n\ncourt    held      that    the      tribunal        rightly         did    not\n\nallow the additional ground to be raised                            for the\n\nfirst time before it.                   The very fact that the\n\n<\/pre>\n
Full Bench of this Court had held that discretion<\/p>\n
exercised by the tribunal in the facts of a given<\/p>\n
case is correct, necessarily implies that in the<\/p>\n
facts of a particular case the tribunal posseses<\/p>\n
power to entertain a ground for the first time<\/p>\n
before       it.         Therefore,          in     our     opinion        the<\/p>\n
judgment of this court in the case of Bihar State<\/p>\n
Road Transport Corporation instead of supporting<\/p>\n
the contention of the revenue goes against him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              In    view       of   the      decision       of Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this Court in the case of Hindusthan<\/p>\n
Malleables and Forgings Ltd. V Commissioner of<\/p>\n
Income Tax         (191 ITR 110) this               question need not<\/p>\n
detain us much.            In our opinion in the scheme of<\/p>\n
the Act there             is nothing, which restricts the<\/p>\n
tribunal       to determine all question                       not raised<\/p>\n
before       the    departmental             authority        .     In     our<\/p>\n
opinion      whether       the      points        raised      before       the<\/p>\n
tribunal      for        the    first        time      is     fit    to    be<\/p>\n
entertained         or     not      primarily          is     within       its<\/p>\n
discretion. It is not a matter of jurisdiction
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
but discretion. We, hasten to add that in case in<\/p>\n
which         the         point      raised           does        not        need<\/p>\n
investigation of fact and goes to the root of the<\/p>\n
matter,       the        tribunal,        in    the     absence         of    any<\/p>\n
compelling          reason        shall        permit        raising         such<\/p>\n
point. This will advance the cause of justice.<\/p>\n
               Accordingly           our       answer     to      the     first<\/p>\n
question is in the affirmative and it is held<\/p>\n
that     the        tribunal        was        correct       in    admitting<\/p>\n
additional grounds of appeal raised before it for<\/p>\n
the first time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               Mr.        Prasad,       then       submits         that       the<\/p>\n
tribunal erred in holding that the notice issued<\/p>\n
under section 148 of the Act is illegal. We do<\/p>\n
not find any substance in the submission of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel. The assessing officer has issued<\/p>\n
notice under section 148 of the Act on the basis<\/p>\n
of     the     figure        obtained          from      the      sales       tax<\/p>\n
department          in      the     assessment           order      of        the<\/p>\n
assessee. A perusal of the assessment order does<\/p>\n
not    suggest           suppression         of    turn      over       by    the<\/p>\n
assessee           nor      there       is        any    whisper          about<\/p>\n
suppression of turn over in the said order.                                  Thus<\/p>\n
there        was     no     material           before     the      assessing<\/p>\n
officer for issuing notice under section 148 of<\/p>\n
the Act.            It is     well settled              that only such
\n                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
material which has live link and proximate nexus<\/p>\n
available with the assessing officer, may enable<\/p>\n
him    to   form   a   reasonable        believe   about    the<\/p>\n
nondisclosure of the material fact by assessee<\/p>\n
resulting    in    escapement     of     chargeable   income.<\/p>\n
We have found no nexus between them.                  In that<\/p>\n
view   of   the    matter   we    have    no   hesitation    in<\/p>\n
coming to the conclusion that the issuance of<\/p>\n
notice was illegal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly our answer to the second<\/p>\n
question is also in the affirmative and it is<\/p>\n
held that the tribunal was justified in holding<\/p>\n
that the issue of notice under section 148 was<\/p>\n
illegal     and    consequently        the     assumption    of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction in pursuance to such illegal notice<\/p>\n
by assessing officer is illegal and void.<\/p>\n
             Let our opinion be transmitted to the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Tribunal, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
             This reference is accordingly disposed<\/p>\n
off.\n<\/p>\n
                       (Chandrammauli Kr. Prasad, J)<\/p>\n
                                 (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court
\nDated the 24th of July 2008
\nRahman\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008 Author: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad TAX CASES No.50 OF 1998 Statement of case under Section 33(2)(C) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959 by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar Patna in the matter of assessment of Sales Tax of the […]<\/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":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-06T07:02:23+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\\\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-06T07:02:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1730,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\\\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-06T07:02:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\\\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-06T07:02:23+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-06T07:02:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008"},"wordCount":1730,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-06T07:02:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxbih-vs-ms-janta-khad-bhandar-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bih vs M\/S Janta Khad Bhandar on 24 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/81254","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=81254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}