{"id":95070,"date":"2009-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009"},"modified":"2014-05-25T06:11:28","modified_gmt":"2014-05-25T00:41:28","slug":"ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 1223 of 2006()\n\n\n1. M\/S.PANCHAMAN TRADERS,KALARICKAL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :30\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                              C.R.\n                 C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &\n                         V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.\n                 --------------------------------------------\n                       W.A. No. 1223 OF 2006\n                 --------------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single<\/p>\n
Judge who upheld the suo motu orders issued by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
directing revision of appellant’s income tax assessment for the year<\/p>\n
1992-93 to determine taxable income, consistent with the decision of<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA V. A. SANYASI RAO,<\/a> 219<\/p>\n
ITR 330 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
      2. The appellant-assessee was engaged in arrack business during<\/p>\n
the previous year relevant for the assessment year 1992-93. Even<\/p>\n
though Profit and Loss account filed along with the income tax returns<\/p>\n
showed net income of Rs. 10,53,607\/- the assessee returned income<\/p>\n
from arrack business only at Rs. 5,25,645\/-, which was income<\/p>\n
assessable under Section 44AC of the I.T. Act. The assessment was<\/p>\n
completed ignoring the higher income shown in the P & L account as<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
income from arrack business, but by accepting the income under<\/p>\n
Section 44AC of the Act. The original assessment was completed on<\/p>\n
7.2.1995. The assessee filed appeal against the assessment before the<\/p>\n
CIT (Appeals) on some other issues pertaining to addition made of the<\/p>\n
amount shown in the capital account of other partners.      The CIT<\/p>\n
(Appeals) by order dated 13.12.1995 set aside the assessment and<\/p>\n
remanded the case back to the assessing officer for the purpose of<\/p>\n
reconsidering the additions contested by the assessee in appeal. It is<\/p>\n
thereafter that the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment in<\/p>\n
SANYASI RAO’s case referred above on 13.2.1996 holding that<\/p>\n
income from liquor business also should be computed in accordance<\/p>\n
with Sections 28 to 43C like any other business income and the<\/p>\n
provisions of Sections 44AC and 206 are only machinery provisions.<\/p>\n
Therefore it was the duty of the assessing officer to have noticed the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Supreme Court and made assessment in respect of<\/p>\n
income from arrack business based on P & L account filed by the<\/p>\n
assessee. However, while revising the assessment based on the orders<\/p>\n
in appeal, the assessing officer did not consider the decision of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court above referred, but retained the income assessed in<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
respect of arrack business under Section 44AC in the revised<\/p>\n
assessment completed on 6.3.1998. The Commissioner of Income tax<\/p>\n
on noticing the irregularity committed by the assessing officer, leading<\/p>\n
to evasion of tax, initiated suo motu revision proceedings under Section<\/p>\n
263 of the Act and passed orders on 30.3.2000 directing revision of<\/p>\n
assessment on income from arrack business based on income disclosed<\/p>\n
in P & L account and in terms of declaration of law by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in SANYASI RAO’s case above referred. Even though statutory<\/p>\n
appeal was available         against Section 263 order, the assessee<\/p>\n
approached this Court in writ proceedings contending that the order is<\/p>\n
without jurisdiction mainly because it is time-barred. The learned<\/p>\n
single Judge upheld the order both on merit as well as on the question<\/p>\n
of limitation raised by the appellant. This Appeal is against the said<\/p>\n
judgment and we have heard Sri. P. Balakrishnan, counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the respondent.<\/p>\n
      3. The first question raised is against the finding of the learned<\/p>\n
single Judge that the order passed by the Commissioner under Section<\/p>\n
263 of the IT Act is within time. The case of the appellant-assessee is<\/p>\n
that the issue decided by the Officer and which was subject matter of<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
revision by the Commissioner under the impugned order issued under<\/p>\n
Section 263 is with regard to computation of business income from<\/p>\n
arrack under Section 44AC in the original assessment, which should<\/p>\n
have been made based on P & L account filed by the assessee, which<\/p>\n
showed higher income from business than the income assessable under<\/p>\n
Section 44AC.       Even though appeal was filed against original<\/p>\n
assessment completed on 7.2.1995, this was not the subject matter of<\/p>\n
appeal and therefore it was open to the Commissioner to revise the<\/p>\n
original assessment on this issue within two years from the date of<\/p>\n
original order which was not done in this case. According to counsel<\/p>\n
since the issue was not subject matter of appeal, the Commissioner<\/p>\n
should have revised the assessment even during the pendency of appeal<\/p>\n
before the first appellate authority or after the first appellate authority<\/p>\n
disposed of the appeal. The specific case of the assessee therefore is<\/p>\n
that suo motu revisional order issued on 30.3.2000 is time barred<\/p>\n
because limitation with regard to suo motu revision power under<\/p>\n
Section 263 has to be considered with reference to original assessment<\/p>\n
completed on 7.2.1995. On the other hand, standing counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the respondent contended that suo motu revision power under<\/p>\n
                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 263 should be considered with reference to revised order issued<\/p>\n
based on orders in appeal, if the issue raised by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
under Section 263 was not raised or considered by the appellate<\/p>\n
authority. In this particular case, the specific case of the department is<\/p>\n
that the Commissioner (Appeals) had in fact set aside the original<\/p>\n
assessment in appeal and so much so, there was no order available to<\/p>\n
the Commissioner for revision under Section 263 until the Officer<\/p>\n
revised the assessment.       According to standing counsel, revised<\/p>\n
assessment was issued by the assessing officer on 6.3.1998 without<\/p>\n
considering the law declared by the Supreme Court in SANYASI<\/p>\n
RAO’s    case and therefore the order prejudicial to the interest of<\/p>\n
revenue is revised order issued on 6.3.1998 by the assessing officer<\/p>\n
ignoring the judgment of the Supreme Court above referred and so<\/p>\n
much so limitation available for revision of order under sub-section (2)<\/p>\n
of Section 263 is upto two years from the end of the financial year in<\/p>\n
which revised order is passed..\n<\/p>\n
      4. Learned counsel for the appellant-assessee has relied on the<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in CIT V. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE<\/p>\n
LTD., 293 I.T.R. 1 (SC), and contended that under explanation C to<\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 263(1) there is no merger of the assessment pertaining to<\/p>\n
income from arrack business in the appellate order and so much so, the<\/p>\n
Commissioner was free to revise the original assessment under section<\/p>\n
263 on this issue even during the pendency of the first appeal before<\/p>\n
the first appellate authority. We are unable to accept this contention for<\/p>\n
more than one reason. In the first place, assessment on computation of<\/p>\n
income from arrack business originally made on 7.2.1992 became an<\/p>\n
order prejudicial to the interest of revenue by virtue of declaration of<\/p>\n
law by the Supreme Court vide judgment in SANYASI RAO’s case<\/p>\n
dated 13.2.1996.      Therefore Commissioner could not have been<\/p>\n
expected to pass orders under Section 263 until the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
pronounced the judgment. Further, if the assessing officer had taken<\/p>\n
note of the judgment of the Supreme Court he himself could have<\/p>\n
corrected the mistake in the revised assessment either by invoking the<\/p>\n
power under Section 154 or by resort to Section 147. Secondly the<\/p>\n
Commissioner in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 263 can<\/p>\n
revise the assessment found to be prejudicial to the interest of the<\/p>\n
revenue within two years from the end of the financial year in<\/p>\n
which such order is passed. In this case, the order sought to be revised<\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
was set aside in appeal; by the first appellate authority for redoing the<\/p>\n
assessment with specific reference to the issues raised in the appeal. In<\/p>\n
fact it is pertinent to note that under Section 251 (1)(a) Commissioner<\/p>\n
(Appeals) has authority even to enhance assessment which was the<\/p>\n
subject matter of appeal before him. The powers of Commissioner<\/p>\n
(Appeals) under Section 251(1)(a) are similar to the power of regular<\/p>\n
Commissioner who exercises supervisory jurisdiction over the<\/p>\n
assessing officers under Section 263 to correct orders prejudicial to the<\/p>\n
interest of the revenue. Therefore once the appeal is filed by the<\/p>\n
assessee on any ground, it was open to the Commissioner (Appeals) to<\/p>\n
consider whether the impugned assessment order is otherwise<\/p>\n
prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and to order revision of<\/p>\n
assessment to make up for the omissions made or to rectify the<\/p>\n
mistakes or to bring to tax the income that has escaped assessment<\/p>\n
which in other words means that orders prejudicial to the interest of the<\/p>\n
revenue should be ordered to be corrected by the first appellate<\/p>\n
authority as well.       Therefore there is nothing wrong in the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, exercising supervisory powers over the assessing<\/p>\n
officers, to wait for the orders in appeal and then to revise the<\/p>\n
                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
assessment on matters which are not considered in appeal by the first<\/p>\n
appellate authority. If the result of appeal is setting aside the<\/p>\n
assessment though for limited purposes, still in our view no order<\/p>\n
survives to be revised by the Commissioner under Section 263 on any<\/p>\n
point originally decided. In fact, as already found by us, even after<\/p>\n
setting aside the assessment, the assessing officer has ample powers<\/p>\n
under Section 154 as well as under Section 147 to correct his own<\/p>\n
mistakes in the original assessment so that revised order issued by him<\/p>\n
consistent with the orders in appeal will be an order not prejudicial to<\/p>\n
the interest of the revenue. It is only when the first appellate authority<\/p>\n
omits to correct orders prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and<\/p>\n
only if the assessing officer also fails to correct his mistakes in the<\/p>\n
original assessment while issuing revised orders giving effect to the<\/p>\n
order in appeal, the Commissioner needs to exercise his supervisory<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and so much so the<\/p>\n
Commissioner has jurisdiction to revise the revised assessment on<\/p>\n
matters concluded by the assessing officer in the original assessment<\/p>\n
which are again incorporated in the revised order. We have in this<\/p>\n
case already found that limitation does not apply because in first<\/p>\n
                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal, the first appellate authority set aside the assessment within the<\/p>\n
period of limitation available to the Commissioner for issuing orders<\/p>\n
under Section 263 and once assessment is set aside, revised order is a<\/p>\n
new proceeding against which also powers under Section 263 are<\/p>\n
available to the Commissioner. Admittedly impugned order of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner under Section 263 issued on 30.3.2000 is within two<\/p>\n
years from the end of the financial year in which the revised assessment<\/p>\n
is issued, that is on 6.3.1998. Therefore we confirm the order of the<\/p>\n
learned single Judge holding that the proceedings impugned in the<\/p>\n
WPC is within time. However, we make it clear that if the CIT<\/p>\n
(Appeals) had not set aside the original assessment in appeal, limitation<\/p>\n
for revision under Section 263 has to be worked out from the date of<\/p>\n
original assessment and in that event revisional order by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner would be time barred. In other words, limitation for<\/p>\n
revision under Section 263 on any matter concluded in the original<\/p>\n
assessment with reference to revised order issued after appeal arises<\/p>\n
only when the CIT (Appeals) sets aside the assessment in appeal within<\/p>\n
the period for revision available to the Commissioner for revision<\/p>\n
under Section 263 against original assessment.\n<\/p>\n
                                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
      5. So far as the challenge against merit of the impugned order is<\/p>\n
concerned, we find that the assessing officer passed the revised<\/p>\n
assessment after declaration of law by the Supreme Court in SANYASI<\/p>\n
RAO’s case, but by ignoring it which led to escapement of assessment<\/p>\n
of substantial amount of income because income returned by the<\/p>\n
assessee in the arrack business in the P & L Account was almost double<\/p>\n
the income returned under Section 44AC and originally assessed by the<\/p>\n
assessing officer. In fact, if the assessing officer had noted the decision<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court which was already published much before<\/p>\n
revision of assessment, he himself would have corrected the omission<\/p>\n
in the original assessment in the course of revision of assessment based<\/p>\n
on orders in appeal. Therefore there is no substance in the challenge<\/p>\n
against the merit of the impugned order as well.\n<\/p>\n
      Consequently we dismiss the writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (V.K. MOHANAN)
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kk<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 1223 of 2006() 1. M\/S.PANCHAMAN TRADERS,KALARICKAL, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, … Respondent 2. THE INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1, For Petitioner :SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) For Respondent :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-95070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009 - 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\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-25T00:41:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-25T00:41:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1959,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-25T00:41:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009 - 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\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-25T00:41:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-25T00:41:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009"},"wordCount":1959,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009","name":"M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-25T00:41:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-panchaman-traders-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Panchaman Traders vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 30 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95070","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=95070"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95070\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}