{"id":83095,"date":"1964-12-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-12-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964"},"modified":"2019-04-05T11:28:52","modified_gmt":"2019-04-05T05:58:52","slug":"seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964","title":{"rendered":"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special … on 8 December, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special … on 8 December, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1387, \t\t 1965 SCR (2) 355<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSETH BANARSI DAS ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nWEALTH TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE MEERUT, ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/12\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nSHAH, J.C.\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1387\t\t  1965 SCR  (2) 355\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1967 SC1176\t (9)\n R\t    1969 SC  59\t (3)\n R\t    1972 SC1061\t (99,171,174)\n R\t    1972 SC2119\t (3)\n RF\t    1981 SC1269\t (3)\n\n\nACT:\nWealth-tax Act, 1957 (No. 27 of 1957), s. 3-Hindu  undivided\nfamilies made chargeable to wealth tax-Section whether ultra\nvires-Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, List 1, Entry\n86.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe appellants who were Hindu undivided families  challenged\nthe  levy of wealth tax on them on the ground that s.  3  of\nthe Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in so far as it brought to  charge\nHindu  undivided families was ultra vires being\t beyond\t the\nterms of Entry 86 in List 1. Their writ petitions before the\nHigh  Court  having  been rejected,  but  a  certificate  of\nfitness\t having been granted, they appealed to\tthe  Supreme\nCourt.\nThe  contentions  urged by the appellants were :  (1)  Hindu\nundivided families were not mentioned as possible  assessees\nin  Entry 86 and groups of individuals were not\t covered  by\nthe   word  'individuals'  used\t therein.  (2)\t Individuals\nconstituting a Hindu undivided family could not be subjected\nto  the tax because the coparceners are a  fluctuating\tbody\nand  their  shares in the capital assets of the\t family\t are\nliable\tto  increase or decrease and  cannot  be  definitely\npredicated  for\t the  accounting  year\tas  a  whole  unless\npartition  is  made.  (3)  Entry 86 had\t to  be\t read  in  a\nrestrictive manner because unlike Entry 82 it specified\t the\nassessable   entities,\tand  by\t separately   referring\t  to\ncompanies  it introduced a limitation on the  denotation  of\nthe  word  'individuals'. (4) In  income-tax  legislation  a\ndistinction  had always been maintained between\t individuals\nand Hindu undivided families and the same must be deemed  to\nhave been observed in framing Entry 86.\nHELD : The impugned section was valid because Parliament was\ncompetent  to  legislate  in  respect  of  Hindu   undivided\nfamilies under Entry 86.\n(i)The\tword  'individuals' in Entry 86 takes in  its  sweep\ngroups\tof individuals like Hindu undivided  families.\t The\nConstitution-makers were fully aware that the Hindu citizens\nof the country normally form Hindu undivided families and if\nthe object was to levy taxes on the capital value of  assets\nit   is\t inconceivable\tthat  the  word\t 'individuals'\t was\nintroduced  in the Entry with the object of  excluding\tfrom\nits  scope  such a large and extensive area which  would  be\ncovered by Hindu undivided families. [364 B-C]\nCase-law referred to.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Madhya Pradesh & Bhopal v. Sodra\nDevi<\/a>;  Damayanti  Sahni v. Commissioner\t of  Income-tax,  32\nI.T.R. 615, relied on.\n(ii)Groups of individuals the capital value of whose  assets\nwould  be  subjected  to the payment of\t wealth\t tax,  would\nnaturally  be groups of individuals who form a unit and\t who\nown  the said assets together.\tThe fact that the rights  of\nindividuals   constituting  the\t group\tare  liable  to\t  be\ndecreased or increased does not make any difference when the\nquestion is whether the word 'individuals' is wide enough to\ninclude groups of individuals. [361 F-G]\n(iii)The Entries in the legislative Lists must be given\t the\nwidest interpretation; they must not be read in a narrow and\nrestricted sense. [359 D]\n356\nUnited\tProvinces  v.  Mst.  Atiqa Begum  and  Ors.,  [1940]\nF.C.R. 110, relied on.\nThere  is  nothing in the context of Entry 86 which  can  be\nsaid  to introduce an element of restriction  or  limitation\nwhile interpreting the word 'individuals'. [360 A-E)\nIt  is\ttrue that Entry 82 is couched in  wider\t terms\tthan\nEntry 86.  This is natural because what Entry 82 purports to\ndo is to recognise the legislative competence of  Parliament\nto levy taxes on income, the only limitation being that\t the\nincome must be other than agricultural income.\tSince  Entry\n86  refers  to taxes on the capital value  of  asset-,,\t the\nConstitution makers must have thought that it was  necessary\nto  specify  whose  assets should be subject  to  the  taxes\ncontemplated   by   the\t Entry.\t  Each\tEntry  has   to\t  be\nindependently interpreted, and a restrictive  interpretation\nof  Entry 86 would not be justified because of the words  of\nEntry 82. [360 D-E]\nNor   would  a\trestrictive  interpretation  of\t  the\tword\n'individuals' be justified on the ground that companies\t had\nnot  been included within that term in the Entry.  Since  it\nwas intended to tax the capital of companies it was  thought\ndesirable  to  specify companies as a matter  of  precaution\nalong with individuals. [360 F]\n(iv) Legislative  history showing that the  taxing  statutes\ndrew a distinction between 'individuals' and Hindu undivided\nfamilies cannot afford any material assistance in construing\nEntry  86.   Occurring\tin  an\torganic\t document  like\t the\nConstitution  the  word 'individuals' need  not\t necessarily\nreceive the same construction as in taxing statutes. [362 F-\nG]\nNavinchandra  Mafatlal\tv. The Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,\nBombay\tCity,<\/a> [1955]1 S.C.R. 829 and Navnitlal C. Javeri  v.\nK.  K. Sen, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of\t Income-tax,\nBombay,<\/a> [1965] 1 S.C.R. 909 referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 124 to 129
\nof 1964.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals from the judgment and decree dated March 23, 1961 of
\nthe  Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.  Writs\t Nos.  2127,
\n2128 and 2980 to 2983 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t Chatterjee and J. B.  Agarwala, for the  appellants
\n(in
\nC.   A. Nos. 124 and 125 of 1964).\n<\/p>\n
A.   V. Viswanatha Sastri and J. P. Goyal, for the appellant
\n(in C.A. No. 126\/1964).\n<\/p>\n
J.   P. Goyal, for the appellants (in C. A. Nos. 127 to\t 129
\nof 1964).\n<\/p>\n
S.   V.\t Gupte, Solicitor-General, R, Ganapathy Iyer, R.  H.
\nDhebar\tand B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondents  (in\t all
\nthe appeals)
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGajendragadkar, C. J. The common question of law which\tthis
\ngroup  of  six appeals raises for our  decision\t is  whether
\nsection\t 3  of\tthe Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 (No.  27  of  1957)
\n(hereinafter  called ‘the Act) in so far as it\tpurports  to
\nlevy a charge of wealth tax in respect of the net wealth  of
\na Hindu undivided family at the
\n357<\/span>
\nspecified  rate,  is valid.  The  respective  appellants  in
\nthese  appeals who constitute Hindu undivided families\twere
\ncharged\t under s. 3 and they challenged the validity of\t the
\nsaid  charge on the ground that the said section  was  ultra
\nvires.\t The writ petitions filed by these  appellants\twere
\nheard  by  a  Special  Bench of\t the  Allahabad\t High  Court
\nconsisting of Gurtu, Upadhya, and Jagdish Sahai, JJ.   Gurtu
\nand Jagdish Sahai, JJ. have rejected the appellants’ conten-
\ntion and have upheld the validity of the impugned provision.
\nAccording  to  Jagdish Sahai, J., the  impugned\t section  is
\nintra  vires, because Parliament had legislative  competence
\nto enact the said provision under Entry 86 in List 1 of\t the
\nSeventh Schedule to the Constitution.  Gurtu, J. who  agreed
\nwith  the  said conclusion, however sustained  the  impugned
\nprovision under Entry 97 in List 1 read with Art. 248 of the
\nConstitution.\tUpadhya,  J. held that neither of  the\tsaid
\nprovisions conferred legislative competence on Parliament to
\nenact  the  impugned  provision,  and so,  he  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that, the said provision was ultra vires and\t the
\ncharge\t levied\t against  the  appellants  was,\t  therefore,
\ninvalid.  In accordance with the majority decision, the writ
\npetitions filed by the respective appellants were dismissed.
\nThe  appellants then applied for and  obtained\tcertificates
\nfrom  the said High Court, and it is with  the\tcertificates
\nissued in their favour that they have come to this Court  in
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
The Act was passed in 1957 to provide for the levy of wealth
\ntax.   Section\t3 of the Act provides that  subject  to\t the
\nother  provisions  contained  in this Act,  there  shall  be
\ncharged for every financial year commencing on and from\t the
\nfirst day of April, 1957, a tax (hereinafter referred to  as
\nwealth-tax)   in   respect  of\tthe  net   wealth   on\t the
\ncorresponding  valuation  date of  every  individual,  Hindu
\nundivided family and company at the rate or rates  specified
\nin  the\t Schedule.   The  three\t Constitutional\t  provisions
\nrelevant  to the decision of the point raised before  us  in
\nthese appeals may now be set out.\n<\/p>\n
Entry 86 in List 1 deals with taxes on the capital value  of
\nthe  assets, exclusive of agricultural land, of\t individuals
\nand companies; taxes on the capital of companies.  Entry  97
\nin  the said List refers to any other matter not  enumerated
\nin  List II or List III including any tax not  mentioned  in
\neither of those Lists.\tArticle 248 -reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  Parliament has exclusive power  to\tmake
\n\t      any  law\twith  respect  to  any\tmatter\t not
\n\t      enumerated  in  the Concurrent List  or  State
\n\t      List.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
358<\/span><\/p>\n
.lm15
\n(2)Such\t power\tshall include the power of  making  any\t law
\nimposing a tax not mentioned in either of those Lists”.
\nThe  appellants contend that the word “individuals” used  in
\nEntry 86 cannot take in Hindu undivided families.  The taxes
\nwhich  Parliament is empowered to levy under this Entry\t can
\nbe  levied  only  on  individuals  and\tnot  on\t groups\t  of
\nindividuals,  and  on companies.  A Hindu  undivided  family
\nconsists  of  different\t coparceners  who  are,\t no   doubt,
\nindividuals, but inasmuch as the impugned provision purports
\nto levy wealth tax on the capital value of the assets of the
\nHindu  undivided families as such, the tax is not levied  on
\nindividuals,  but on groups of individuals, and,  therefore,
\nis  outside the scope of Entry 86.  The\t appellants  further
\nurge  that if the Hindu undivided families are\toutside\t the
\nscope  of Entry 86, they cannot be subjected to the levy  of
\nwealth\ttax  under  Entry 97, because  Entry  97  refers  to
\nmatters\t other\tthan those specified in Entries 1 to  96  in
\nList  1\t as well as those enumerated in Lists  II  and\tIII.
\nSince\twealth\ttax  is\t a  matter  which  is\tspecifically
\nenumerated in Entry 86 of List 1, Entry 97 cannot be held to
\ntake in the said tax in respect of Hindu undivided families.
\nIn regard to Art. 248, the appellants’ argument is that\t the
\nsaid article must be read together with Entry 97 in List  1.
\nand  if\t wealth tax in respect of the capital value  of\t the
\nassets of Hindu undivided families is outside both Entry  86
\nand  Entry 97, the residuary power of legislation  conferred
\non  Parliament by Art. 248 cannot be invoked in\t respect  of
\nthe tax imposed on the capital value of the assets of  Hindu
\nundivided  families by the impugned provision.\tThat is\t how
\nthe  validity of the impugned provision has been  challenged
\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n
On  the other hand, the respondent, the Wealth Tax  Officer,
\nseeks  to  sustain the validity of  the\t impugned  provision
\nprimarily  under Entry 86 in List 1. It is contended on\t his
\nbehalf that the word “individuals” used in Entry 86 is\twide
\nenough to take within its sweep groups of individuals and as
\nsuch, Hindu undivided families fall within the scope of\t the
\narea covered by Entry 86.  In the alternative, it is  argued
\nthat Entry 97 which is a residuary entry, would take in\t all
\nmatters not enumerated in List II or List III including\t any
\ntax  not mentioned in either of those Lists.   According  to
\nthe  respondent,  the word “matter” mentioned  in  Entry  97
\ncannot take in taxes specified in Entry 86, but it refers to
\nthe  subject-matter in respect of which Parliament seeks  to
\nmake  a law under Entry 97.  The subject-matter of  the\t tax
\nimposed by
\n359<\/span>
\nthe impugned provision is the capital value of the assets of
\na Hindu undivided family and if that is held not included in
\nEntry  86,  it\twould fall within the  scope  of  Entry\t 97,
\nbecause\t it satisfies the requirement specified by the\tsaid
\nEntry,\tnamely,\t that the said matter should not  have\tbeen
\nenumerated  in List 11 or List 111.  In regard to Art.\t248,
\nthe  respondent’s case is that this article  prescribes\t the
\nresiduary  power of legislation conferred on Parliament\t and
\nmust  be read independently of the Lists.  In  other  words,
\neven  if  the  impugned provision  cannot  be  sustained  by
\nreference  to Entry 86 or Entry 97 in List 1, the  power  of
\nParliament to levy the tax imposed by the impugned provision
\ncan,  nevertheless, be claimed under the provisions of\tArt.\n<\/p>\n
248.   That,  in its broad outlines, is the  nature  of\t the
\ncontroversy between the parties in the present appeals.
\nLogically,  the\t first question to consider is\twhether\t the
\nimpugned  provision can be referred to Entry 86 or not.\t  In
\nconstruing the word “individuals” used in the said Entry, it
\nis necessary to remember that the relevant words used in the
\nEntries\t of  the Seventh Schedule must\treceive\t the  widest
\ninterpretation.\t As Gwyer, C.J., has observed in The  United
\nProvinces  v. Mst.  Atiqa Begum and Others(1), “none of\t the
\nitems  in the Lists is to be read in a narrow or  restricted
\nsense,\tand that each general word should be held to  extend
\nto all ancillary or subsidiary matters which can fairly\t and
\nreasonably be said to be comprehended in it. I deprecate any
\nattempt to enumerate in advance all the matters which are to
\nbe  included under any of the more general descriptions;  it
\nwill be sufficient and much wiser to determine each case  as
\nand when it comes before the Court”.\n<\/p>\n
Another rule of construction which is also  well-established
\nis that it may not be reasonable to import any limitation in
\ninterpreting  a particular Entry in the lists  by  comparing
\nthe  said  Entry or contrasting it with any other  Entry  in
\nthat very List.\t While the Court is determining the scope of
\nthe  area  covered  by a particular Entry,  the\t Court\tmust
\ninterpret  the relevant words in the Entry in a natural\t way
\nand give the said words the widest interpretation.  What the
\nEntries purport to do is to describe the area of legislative
\ncompetence  of the different legislative bodies, and so,  it
\nwould be unreasonable to approach the task of interpretation
\nin a narrow or restrictive manner.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1940] F. C. R. 110, 134
\n3Sup.\/65 – 7
\n360<\/span>
\nThe appellants no doubt contrast Entry 86 with Entry 82\t and
\ncontend\t that  the said contrast brings out  an\t element  of
\nlimitation  or\trestriction  which  should  be\timported  in
\nconstruing  Entry  86.\tEntry 82 refers to taxes  on  income
\nother  than agricultural income.  The argument is  that\t the
\npower  to  levy\t taxes\ton  income  is\tnot  conditioned  by
\nreference  to individuals or companies; it is  an  unlimited
\nextensive  power.  In contrast with this Entry, it is  urged
\nthat limitation is introduced by Entry 86, because it  seeks
\nto  confer power to levy taxes on the capital value  of\t the
\nassets\tof  individuals and companies.\t The  assessees\t are
\nindicated by this Entry, and that that itself introduces  an
\nelement\t of  limitation.  ‘Me appellants  attempt  to  place
\ntheir  case alternatively by emphasising the fact  that\t the
\nword  “individuals”  in the context cannot  mean  companies,
\nbecause\t companies are separately and distinctly  mentioned;
\nthat again, it is said, introduces an element of  limitation
\n,on    the   denotation\t  of   the    word    “individuals”.
\n“Individuals’,\ttherefore, must mean individuals and  cannot
\nmean  groups  of individuals, that is  the  main  contention
\nraised\tby  the appellants.  We are not\t impressed  by\tthis
\nargument.   It is true that Entry 82 does not refer  to\t the
\nassessees,  and that is natural because what it purports  to
\ndo is to recognise the legislative competence of  Parliament
\nto levy taxes on income, the only limitation being that\t the
\nincome must be other than agricultural income.\tSince  Entry
\n86  refers to taxes on the capital value of the assets,\t the
\nConstitution-makers must have thought that it was  necessary
\nto  specify  whose  assets should be subject  to  the  taxes
\ncontemplated by the Entry, and that explains why individuals
\nand   companies\t  are  mentioned.    Since   companies\t are
\nspecifically  mentioned\t along with individuals, it  may  be
\npermissible to contend that companies in the context are not
\nincluded  in  the word “individuals”, or it may\t perhaps  be
\nthat  since  Entry  86\twanted to  specify  that  the  taxes
\nleviable  under\t it have to be taxes on the capital  of\t the
\ncompanies, it was thought desirable that companies should be
\nspecified as a matter of precaution along with\tindividuals.
\nHowever\t that may be, it is not easy to understand  why\t the
\nword  “individuals”  cannot  take in  its  sweep  groups  of
\nindividuals  like Hindu undivided families.  The use of\t the
\nword  “individuals”  in\t the plural is not  of\tany  special
\nsignificance, because under S. 13 (2) of the General Clauses
\nAct,  1897  (No. 10 of 1897), words in\tthe  singular  shall
\ninclude the plural, and vice versa.\n<\/p>\n
The basic assumption on which the appellants’ argument rests
\nis  that  the  Constitution-makers  wanted  to\texclude\t the
\ncapital value of the assets of Hindu undivided families from
\ntaxes.\tThat is why
\n361<\/span>
\ntheir contention is that the impugned provision would not be
\nsustained either under Entry 86 or under Entry 97 of List  1
\nor  even  under Art. 248.  It is difficult  to\taccept\tthis
\nargument.   On the face of it, -it is impossible  to  assume
\nthat while thinking of levying taxes on the capital value of
\nassets,\t Hindu undivided families could possible  have\tbeen
\nintended  to  be  left out.  We can  think  of\tno  rational
\njustification  for  making  any such  assumption.   In\tthis
\nconnection, it is significant that on the appellants’  case,
\nthe capital value of the assets of Hindu undivided  families
\nwould never become the subject-matter of wealth tax.   Hindu
\nundivided  families, it is urged, are groups of\t individuals
\nand,  therefore, should be outside Entry 86 and\t individuals
\nwho  constitute such Hindu undivided families could  not  be
\nsubjected  to  the  levy of the tax,  because  the  body  of
\ncoparceners who constitute such Hindu undivided families  is
\na fluctuating body and their shares in the capital assets of
\ntheir respective families are liable to increase or decrease
\nand cannot be definitely predicated for the accounting\tyear
\nas  a whole, unless partition is made.\tPrima facie, such  a
\nposition appears to be plainly inconsistent with the  scheme
\nof  Entry  86  and  it cannot  be  upheld  unless  the\tword
\n“individuals” is reasonably incapable of including groups of
\nindividuals.\n<\/p>\n
It  is true that when tax is levied on the capital value  of
\nthe,  assets  of Hindu undivided families, in  a  sense\t the
\nassets of individual coparceners are aggregated, and on\t the
\naggregate value a tax is levied; but how the taxes should be
\nlevied and at what rate, is a matter for the legislature  to
\ndecide; that consideration cannot enter into the  discussion
\nof  the\t legislative competence of Parliament to  enact\t the
\nlaw.   It  is hardly necessary to emphasise that  groups  of
\nindividuals,  the  capital value of whose  assets  would  be
\nsubjected  to the payment of wealth tax, would naturally  be
\ngroups\tof individuals who form a unit and who own the\tsaid
\nassets\t together.   The  fact\tthat  the  rights   of\t the
\nindividuals  constituting]  the\t group\tare  liable  to\t  be
\ndecreased or increased does not make any difference when  we
\nare  dealing  with  the\t question as  to  whether  the\tword
\n“individuals”\tin   wide  enough  to  include\t groups\t  of
\nindividuals.  We do not see anything in the context of Entry
\n86 which can be said to introduce an element of\t restriction
\nor  limitation\twhile interpreting the\tword  “individuals”.
\nOrdinarily,  individuals  would be treated as such  and\t the
\ncapital\t value of their separate assets would be taxed;\t but
\nif  individuals\t form  groups and such\tgroups\town  capital
\nassets,\t it is difficult to see why the power to levy  taxes
\non  such  capital assets should be held to  be\toutside\t the
\nscope of Entry 86.\n<\/p>\n
362<\/span><\/p>\n
It is, however, urged that in interpreting the word “indivi-
\nduals”,\t it  would  be relevant to  take  into\taccount\t the
\nlegislative  history of tax legislation.  Section 3  of\t the
\nIndian\tIncome-tax  Act, 1922 (No.  XI of 1922)\t is  pressed
\ninto  service  for the purpose of this argument.   The\tsaid
\nsection\t provides,  inter alia, that where any\tCentral\t Act
\nenacts that income-tax shall be charged for any year at\t any
\nrate,  tax  at that rate shall be charged for that  year  in
\naccordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of the
\ntotal income of the previous year of every individual, Hindu
\nundivided  family, company or local authority, and of  every
\nfirm and other association of persons or the partners of the
\nfirm  or the members of the association\t individually.\t The
\nargument is that s. 3 recognises that the word\t“individual”
\nwould  not  include Hindu undivided family, and\t so.   Hindu
\nundivided family has been separately mentioned by it.  It is
\npointed out that this distinction between an individual\t and
\na  Hindu  undivided family has been recognised even  in\t the
\nearlier\t Income-tax Acts.  Section 3(7) of Act 11  of  1886,
\nfor  instance, defines a ‘person’ as including a firm and  a
\nHindu  undivided  family; and S. 5 (i) (f) of the  said\t Act
\nwhich  provides\t for exceptions to the charging\t section  4,
\nrefers to any income which a person enjoys as a member of  a
\ncompany, or of a firm, or of a Hindu undivided family,\twhen
\nthe  company,  or the firm, or the family is liable  to\t the
\ntax.  Basing themselves on the distinction which is made  by
\nthe  Income-tax\t Acts  between an  individual  and  a  Hindu
\nundivided  family,  the\t appellants contend  that  the\tword
\n“individuals”  should  not be interpreted to  include  Hindu
\nundivided family.\n<\/p>\n
Assuming  that the legislative history in the matter of\t tax
\nlegislation supports the distinction between individuals and
\nHindu  undivided  families,  we\t do not\t see  how  the\tsaid
\nconsideration\tcan   have  a  material\t  bearing   on\t the
\nconstruction of the word “individuals” in Entry 86.  The tax
\nlegislation  may,  for convenience or other  valid  reasons,
\nhave  made  a  distinction  between  individuals  and  Hindu
\nundivided  families;  but  it would  not  be  legitimate  to
\nsuggest that the word “individuals” occurring in an  organic
\ndocument like the Constitution must necessarily receive\t the
\nsame  construction.   Take, for\t instance,  the\t traditional
\nconcept of income as recognised by the tax law.\t It has been
\nheld   by  this\t Court\tin  Navinchandra  Mafatlal  v.\t The
\nCommissioner  of  Income<\/a> tax Bombay City(1), that  the\tsaid
\ntraditional concept of income cannot introduce consideration
\nof restriction or limitation in
\n(1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 829,857.\n<\/p>\n
363<\/span><\/p>\n
interpreting the word “income” in Entry 54 in List 1 of\t the
\nSeventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, which
\ncorresponds to Entry 82 in List 1 of the Seventh Schedule to
\nthe  Constitution.   In that case, the validity of  the\t tax
\nlevied\ton  capital gains was impeached on the\tground\tthat
\ncapital gains cannot be regarded as income, and so, Entry 54
\ndid  not justify the levy of the tax on capital\t gains.\t  In
\nrejecting  this\t contention, this Court held that  the\tword
\n“income”  occurring  in\t Entry 54 must\treceive\t the  widest
\ninterpretation\tand  could,  therefore,\t be  interpreted  to
\ninclude\t a capital gain.  In holding that the word  “income”
\nincluded  capital  gain, this Court observed that  the\tsaid
\nconclusion  was\t reached  not  because\tof  any\t legislative
\npractice  either in India or in the United States or in\t the
\nCommonwealth of Australia, but “because such was the  normal
\nconcept\t and  connotation  of  the  ordinary  English\tword
\n‘income’.   Its natural meaning embraces -my profit or\tgain
\nwhich is actually received”.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly,  in Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K. K.  Sen,  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay<\/a>(1), when\tthis
\nCourt  had  occasion  to consider the  validity\t of  section
\n12(IB) read with s. 2 (6A) (e) of the Indian Income-tax Act,
\n1922  (No.  11 of 1922) as it stood in\t1955;  the  question
\nwhich  was  raised  for\t its decision  was  whether  it\t was
\ncompetent  to  Parliament  to treat a  loan  advanced  to  a
\nshareholder  of a company as his income.  In  answering\t the
\nsaid  question\tin favour of the  impugned  provision,\tthis
\nCourt observed that “though Parliament cannot choose to\t tax
\nas income an item which in no rational sense can be regarded
\nas  a citizen’s income, it would, nevertheless be  competent
\nto  Parliament\tto  levy a tax on a  loan  received  by\t the
\nshareholder  if\t it was satisfied that the said\t loan  could
\nrationally be construed as his income.\tIn considering\tthis
\nquestion,  however, it would be inappropriate to  apply\t the
\ntest  traditionally  prescribed\t by the\t Income-tax  Act  as
\nsuch”.\t Therefore  we\tdo not think  that  the\t legislative
\nhistory\t in  the  matter  of  the  denotation  of  the\tword
\n“individuals”  on  which  the appellants  rely,\t can  really
\nafford\tany  material  assistance  in  construing  the\tword
\n“individuals” in Entry 86.\n<\/p>\n
Reverting  then to Entry 86, the question which we  have  to
\nask   ourselves\t is  whether  on  a  fair   and\t  reasonable
\nconstruction,  the word “individuals” in the context of\t the
\nEntry  can legitimately be narrowed down to  individuals  as
\nsuch  and  not\tto include groups of  individuals.   If\t the
\nobject\tof making the Entry is to enable Parliament to\tlevy
\ntaxes on the capital value of the assets,
\n(1)  [1965] 1 S.C.R. 909
\n364<\/span>
\nhow  can  it  be  said\tto  be\treasonable  to\tintroduce  a
\nlimitation  on the denotation of the word “individuals”\t and
\nto  say that taxes could not be levied on the capital  value
\nof the assets which belong to groups of individuals.  If the
\nindividuals  constitute\t themselves into a  group  and\tsuch
\ngroup owns capital assets, it is not easy. to understand why
\nthe  value of such assets should not be included within\t the
\nlegislative  field covered by Entry 86.\t  The  Constitution-
\nmakers\twere  fully aware that the Hindu  citizens  of\tthis
\ncountry\t normally form Hindu undivided families and  if\t the
\nobject was to levy taxes on the capital value of the assets,
\nit   is\t inconceivable\tthat  the  word\t “individuals”\t was
\nintroduced  in the Entry with the object of  excluding\tfrom
\nits  scope  such a large and extensive area which  would  be
\ncovered\t by  Hindu undivided families.\tWe  are,  therefore,
\nsatisfied  that\t the  impugned\tsection\t is  valid,  because
\nParliament  was competent to legislate in respect  of  Hindu
\nundivided families under Entry 86.\n<\/p>\n
This question has been considered by several High Courts and
\nthe reported decisions show consensus in judicial opinion in
\nfavour of the construction of Entry 86 which we have adopted
\n(vide Mahavirprasad Badridas v. M. S. Yagnik, Second Wealth-
\ntax  Officer,  C-11  Ward, Bombay(1)  (Bombay  High  Court’s
\ndecision); N. V. Subramanian v. Wealth Tax Officer, Eluru(2)
\n(Andhra\t Pradesh High Court’s decision-single Judge  Bench);
\nP.  Ramabhadra\tRaju v. Union of India (8)  (Andhra  Pradesh
\nHigh  Court’s decision-Division Bench);\t Sarjerao  Appasaheb
\nShitole v. Wealth Tax Officer, A. Ward, Belgaum (4 ) (Mysore
\nHigh  Court’s  decision);  and\tRajah  Sir,  M.\t A.  Muthiah
\nChettiar v. Wealth Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle
\n‘A’, Madras(5) ( Madras High Court’s decision).\t We ought to
\nadd that these reported decisions show that the validity  of
\nthe impugned provision was challenged before the High Courts
\non  the\t ground\t that  the  Hindu  undivided  family  is  an
\nassociation  and  as such, the capital value of\t its  assets
\ncould  not be taxed under Entry 86.  That  naturally  raised
\nthe  question about the true legal character and  status  of
\nHindu  undivided family, and the contention that  they\twere
\nassociations has been rejected.\t Since that argument has not
\nbeen pressed before us, we have not thought it necessary  to
\nconsider it.\n<\/p>\n
Before\twe  part  with these appeals, we  may  refer  to  an
\nearlier\t  decision   of\t this  Court  in  which\t  the\tword
\n“individual”  fell  to be considered.\tIn  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax, Madhya Pradesh &
\n(1)  37 I.T.R. 191
\n(3) 45 I.T.R. II 8\t (5) 53 I.T.R. 504.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  40 I.T.R. 567.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  52 I.T.R. 372.\n<\/p>\n
365<\/span><\/p>\n
Bhopal\tv.  Sodra Devi; Damayanti Sahni v.  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax,(1) the question which arose for the decision  of
\nthis  Court had relation to the construction of s. 16(3)  of
\nthe Indian Income-tax- Act, 1922.  That sub-section provides
\nthat in computing the total income of any individual for the
\npurpose\t of  assessment, there shall be included  the  items
\nspecified in clauses (a) and (b).  What is the denotation of
\nthe word “individual” was one of the points which had to  be
\nconsidered   in\t that  case.   According  to  the   majority
\ndecision, though the word “individual” is narrower than\t the
\nword “Assessee”, it does not mean only a human being, but is
\nwide  enough to include a group of persons forming  a  unit.
\n“It has been held”, observed Bhagwati, J. who spoke for\t the
\nmajority, “that the word ‘individual’ includes a corporation
\ncreated\t by a statute, e.g., a university or a bar  council,
\nor trustees of a baronetcy trust incorporated by a Baronetcy
\nAct.   It would also include a minor or a person of  unsound
\nmind”.\t We are referring to this case only for the  purpose
\nof  showing  that the word “individual” was  interpreted  by
\nthis Court as including a group of persons forming a unit.
\nSince  we have come to the conclusion that Entry  86  covers
\ncases  of  Hindu  undivided families, it  follows  that\t the
\nimpugned  provision  is valid under the said  Entry  itself.
\nThat  being  so, it is unnecessary to consider\twhether\t the
\nvalidity  of the impugned provision can be  sustained  under
\nEntry 97 or under Art. 248 of the Constitution.
\nThe  result  is,  the appeals fail and\tare  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 32 I.T.R. 615.\n<\/p>\n
366<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special … on 8 December, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1387, 1965 SCR (2) 355 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Shah, J.C., Sikri, S.M., Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: SETH BANARSI DAS ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: WEALTH TAX OFFICER, SPECIAL CIRCLE MEERUT, […]<\/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-83095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSeth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special ... on 8 December, 1964 - 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\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special ... on 8 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964\" \/>\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=\"1964-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-05T05:58:52+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=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special … on 8 December, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T05:58:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964\"},\"wordCount\":3932,\"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\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964\",\"name\":\"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special ... on 8 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-12-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-05T05:58:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special … on 8 December, 1964\"}]},{\"@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":"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special ... on 8 December, 1964 - 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\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special ... on 8 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-05T05:58:52+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":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special … on 8 December, 1964","datePublished":"1964-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T05:58:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964"},"wordCount":3932,"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\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964","name":"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special ... on 8 December, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-12-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-05T05:58:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/seth-banarsi-das-etc-vs-wealth-tax-officer-special-on-8-december-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special … on 8 December, 1964"}]},{"@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\/83095","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=83095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83095\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=83095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=83095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=83095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}