{"id":94800,"date":"1967-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1967-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967"},"modified":"2017-04-28T23:32:46","modified_gmt":"2017-04-28T18:02:46","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1552, \t\t 1967 SCR (3) 298<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDAULAT RAM KHANNA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n29\/03\/1967\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR 1552\t\t  1967 SCR  (3) 298\n\n\nACT:\nIncome\tTax  Act  (11 of 1922) s.  63-Notice  under  s.\t 34-\ndirection  by  Income-tax  Officer to affix  at\t address  of\nassessee-No affixture on the notice board of the  Income-tax\nOffice-Sufficiency of substituted service.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nCode  of  Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908), O. V.  r.  20(1)-\nScope of.\nUnder s. 63 of the Income-tax Act a notice under the Act may\nbe served as if it were a summons under the Civil  Procedure\nCode.\tOrder  V,  r.  20(1)  of  the  Code  prescribes\t two\nalternative  methods of service when the summons- could\t not\nbe  served in the ordinary way, namely, (1) by affixing\t one\ncopy  of  the summons in the court-house and  another  in  a\nconspicuous  part  of  the  residential\t house\tor  business\npremises  of the party to be served; and (2) \"in such  other\nmanner\tas  the\t Court thinks fit\".  These  words  confer  a\ndiscretion on the court to adopt any other manner of service\nand include a direction to affix a copy in such manner as to\ngive notice to the person to be served, but without affixing\na copy thereof in the court-house. [301A-B]\nTherefore,  where proceedings under s. 34 of the  Income-tax\nAct,  1922,  were  started against  the\t assessee,  a  Hindu\nUndivided family, by issuing a notice, but the notice  could\nnot  be\t served\t on its karta, and  the\t Income-tax  Officer\nordered substituted service by directing the process  server\nto affix the notice only at the address of the assessee\t and\nsatisfied  himself that the notice was affixed in  a  proper\nmanner, it must be held that the notice was properly  served\non the assessee. [299C-E; 301F]\nJhabar Mal Chokhani v. Commissioner of Income-tax 49  I.T.R.\n391, overruled.\nNarendra  Kishore  Das v. Banamali Sahu Dibakar\t Sahu  Firm,\nA.I.R. 1951 Orissa 312, approved.\nDeccan Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Parsram Tolaram, A.I.R. 1942\nSind  96 and Narendra Prasad Sinha v.  Maharani Janki  Kuer,\nA.I.R. 1947 Pat. 385, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 580 of 1966.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nSeptember  3,  1964 of the Punjab High Court  in  Income-tax
\nReference No. 23 of 1962.\n<\/p>\n
B.Sen,\tT.  A.\tRamachandran  and S. P.\t Nayyar\t for  R.  N.
\nSachthey, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
S. K. Aiyar and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSikri,\tJ. This appeal by special leave is directed  against
\nthe  judgment  of the High Court of Punjab,  Chandigarh,  in
\nIncome\tTax  Reference\tNo. 23 of 1962, made to\t it  by\t the
\nIncome-Tax
\n299<\/span>
\nTribunal under s. 66 (1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.
\nThe following question was referred to the High Court :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and the circumstances of
\n\t      the  case the notice under section 34  of\t the
\n\t      Income-Tax  Act  was properly  served  on\t the
\n\t      assessee within the prescribed period.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The relevant facts, in brief, are that the respondent,\tShri
\nDaulat Ram Khanna, hereinafter referred to as the  assessee,
\nis a Hindu Undivided family, and the dispute relates to\t the
\nyear of assessment 1945-46.  Proceedings under s. 34 of\t the
\nIncome-Tax  Act were started by the Income Tax Officer,\t ‘B’
\nWard, Amritsar, against the assessee by issue of a notice on
\nMarch  29, 1954.  The Process Server went to the  assessee’s
\nshop for service of the notice on the assessee on March\t 30,
\n1954, but he could not serve it on the assessee because\t the
\nkarta  of the assessee was not present.\t The Process  Server
\nreported to the Income-Tax Officer on the same day that\t the
\nassessee  had refused to accept the service of\tthe  notice.
\nOn  receipt of the said report, the Income Tax\tOfficer,  on
\nthe  same  day, i.e., March 30, 1954, sent  the\t notice\t per
\nregistered post and also ordered substituted service of\t the
\nnotice by directing the Process Server to affix the same  at
\nthe  address  of the assessee.\tThe notice  was\t affixed  on
\nMarch  31, 1954.  We need not give the facts  regarding\t the
\nservice\t of  the notice by registered post  because  it\t was
\nreceived by the, assessee on April 5, 1954.  In view of\t the
\nfact that the notice was affixed according to the directions
\nof the Income-Tax Officer, he, after recording the statement
\nof  the Process Server, held that the service of the  notice
\nby affixture was proper.\n<\/p>\n
The  assessee  appealed.  The  Appellate  Assistant  Commis-
\nsioner,\t inter alia, held that as a copy of the\t notice\t was
\nnot  pasted  on\t the outer wall of the office  room  of\t the
\nIncome-Tax Office, the substituted service- was invalid.
\nFurther,  on  appeal, the Appellate Tribunal held  that\t the
\nnotice\twas properly served under Order V. r. 20(1)  of\t the
\nCode  of Civil Procedure, and as the Income-Tax Officer\t was
\nnot a Court, it was not incumbent on him to affix a copy  of
\nthe  notice  on the notice board of the\t Income-Tax  Office.
\nThe  Tribunal, therefore, held that the notice was  properly
\nserved\tand set aside the order of the\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, following its earlier decision in Jhabar Mal
\nChokhani  v.  Commissioner of Income-Tax(1)  held  that\t the
\nsubstituted service was invalid and answered the question in
\nthe negative.  It also refused to allow the counsel for\t the
\nRevenue to raise the
\n(1)  49 1. T. R. 391.\n<\/p>\n
3 00
\npoint  that the notice under S. 34 had been served  in\ttime
\neven  if  the service be taken to have been  effected  after
\nMarch 31, 1954.\t He had relied before the High Court on\t the
\nIndian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1959, and the decision of
\nthis Court in S. C. Prasher v. Vasantson Dwarkadas.(1)
\nThe  learned  counsel for the Revenue, Mr.  B.\tSen,  urges,
\nfirst,\tthat in view of Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Straw
\nProducts Ltd.<\/a> ( 2) the High Court erred in not allowing\t the
\nsecond\tpoint to be raised, and secondly, he contends,\tthat
\nthe earlier case of the High Court in Jhabar Mal Chokhani v.
\nCommissioner  of Income Tax(3) was wrongly decided.   As  we
\nagree  with  the latter contention, it is not  necessary  to
\ndeal with the first point raised by him.\n<\/p>\n
Under s. 63 of the Income-Tax Act a notice may be served  as
\nif it were the summons issued by the court under the Code of
\nCivil Procedure.  The answer to the question depends on\t the
\ntrue  interpretation  of  O.  V. r. 20 (1  )  of  the  Civil
\nProcedure Code which -reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t       ”  (  1 ) Where the Court is  satisfied\tthat
\n\t      there is reason to believe that the  defendant
\n\t      is  keeping out of the way for the purpose  of
\n\t      avoiding\tservice,  or  that  for\t any   other\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      -reason  the summons cannot be served  in\t the
\n\t      ordinary\tway,  the  Court  shall\t order\t the
\n\t      summons  to  be  served  by  affixing  a\tcopy
\n\t      thereof  in  some\t conspicuous  place  in\t the
\n\t      court-house,  and also upon  some\t conspicuous
\n\t      part of the house (if any) in
\n\t      which  the  defendant is known  to  have\tlast
\n\t      resided  or carried on business or  personally
\n\t      worked  for main, or in such other  manner  as
\n\t      the Courtthink’s fit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr.   Sen  divides  the\t above\tsub-rule  into\ttwo   parts.
\nAccording  to him, the first part deals with a copy  of\t the
\nsummons\t being affixed in the court-house and  another\tcopy
\nbeing  affixed in some conspicuous part of  the\t residential
\nhouse  or  business  premises.\t He  says  that\t it  is\t not
\nobligatory on the Court to adopt this method, but the  Court
\ncan, in view of the circumstances, order the service of\t the
\nnotice\tin  any\t other manner as it  thinks  fit.   Mr.\t Sen
\nfurther\t says that it would be noticed that the word  “also”
\nhas not been repeated in the last ten words of the sub-rule,
\nunderlined  above.  He says that in a particular case it  is
\nin  the\t discretion  of the Court to order  service  of\t the
\nnotice by registered post or by affixing a copy thereof\t and
\nthen  satisfying itself that the copy has been affixed in  a
\nproper manner.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1964]  S. C. R. 29:49 I.T.R. 1.\t\t(2)  [1965]2
\nS. C. R. 881.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  49 I.T.R. 391.\n<\/p>\n
30 1
\nIn  our view, there is great deal of force in what  Mr.\t Sen
\nurges.\t It seems to us that the last ten words in  sub-rule
\n(1)  of r. 20, do confer a discretion on the Court to  adopt
\nany  other manner of service.  The sub-rule  prescribes\t one
\nmanner\twhich the Court may follow and this manner  consists
\nof  two\t acts;\t(1) affixing a copy of the  summons  in\t the
\ncourt-house, and (2) affixing it in some conspicuous part of
\nthe  residential  house\t or the\t business  premises  of\t the
\ndefendant.   If\t the High Court were right we  would  expect
\nthat the word “also” would be repeated and inserted  between
\nthe  word  “or”\t and  “in”  in\tthe  last  ten\twords.\t The
\nalternative  manner  which the Court decides  to  adopt\t for
\nserving must of course be such as gives notice to the person
\nto be served.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court in Jhabar Mal Chokhani v.  Commissioner  of
\nIncome\tTax(1) had relied on Deccan Co-operative Batik\tLtd.
\nv. Parsram Tolaram(2) but that case considered O. 21, r. 46,
\nsub-r. (2), and in our view, the High Court wrongly regarded
\nthat  provision being in pari materia with O. V.  r.  20(1),
\nbecause,  in r. 46 (2) the last ten words in O. V. r.  20(1)
\nwhich we have underlined do not figure.\t The decision of the
\nPatna High Court in Narendra Prasad Sinha v. Maharani  Janki
\nKuer  (3 ) is also distinguishable as it also deals with  O.
\n21, r. 46(2).\n<\/p>\n
It seems to us that the object of the Legislature in  giving
\na discretion to the Court is to enable the Court to see that
\nunnecessary steps are not taken and the service is  effected
\nin  the most expeditious and best manner.  For\texample,  if
\nthe person to be served had, to the knowledge of the  Court,
\ntemporarily  gone outside India, the Court might have  sent,
\neven  before  the  insertion  of  r.  20A,  the\t summons  by
\nregistered  post  to his address abroad without\t affixing  a
\ncopy thereof in the court-house.  In Narendra Kishore Das v.
\nBanamali  Sahu Dibakar Sahu Firm (4 ) the Division Bench  of
\nthe  Orissa High Court held that “the last mode of  service,
\nnamely ,or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit’, no
\ndoubt, gives the Court the jurisdiction to have the  service
\nof summons through registered post.”\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t opinion, the case of Jhabar Mal  Chokhani  v.\tCom-
\nmissioner  of  Income Tax(1) was wrongly  decided.   In\t the
\nresult\twe accept the appeal, set aside the judgment of\t the
\nHigh  Court and answer the question in the  affirmative\t and
\nagainst\t the  assessee.\t In the circumstances  of  the\tcase
\nthere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  49 1. T. R. 391.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A. 1. R. 1942, Sind, 96.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A. 1. R. 1947.  Pat. 385.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  A. 1. R. 1951.  Orissa, 312.\n<\/p>\n
302<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 1552, 1967 SCR (3) 298 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUNJAB Vs. RESPONDENT: DAULAT RAM KHANNA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29\/03\/1967 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. […]<\/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-94800","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967 - 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-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967\" \/>\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, ... vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967\" \/>\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=\"1967-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-28T18:02:46+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-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967\",\"datePublished\":\"1967-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-28T18:02:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967\"},\"wordCount\":1455,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1967-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-28T18:02:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967\"}]},{\"@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, ... vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967 - 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-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1967-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-28T18:02:46+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-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967","datePublished":"1967-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-28T18:02:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967"},"wordCount":1455,"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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1967-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-28T18:02:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-daulat-ram-khanna-on-29-march-1967#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Daulat Ram Khanna on 29 March, 1967"}]},{"@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\/94800","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=94800"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94800\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94800"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94800"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94800"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}