{"id":9879,"date":"1961-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961"},"modified":"2015-01-27T08:12:18","modified_gmt":"2015-01-27T02:42:18","slug":"commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of … vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of … vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1265, \t\t 1961 SCR (3) 923<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,ANDHRA PRADESH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMIS.  BHIKAJI DADABHAI & CO.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/02\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1961 AIR 1265\t\t  1961 SCR  (3) 923\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1968 SC 162\t (11)\n R\t    1975 SC1549\t (22,55)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome-tax-Assessment Proceedings pending-Hyderabad  Income-\ntax Act repealed-Penalty, whether an additional tax-If could\nbe  imposed-Appellate Assistant\t Commissioner-jurisdiction--\nAssessment,  meaning  of-Hyderabad Income-tax  Act,  s.\t 40-\nIndian\tIncome-tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922)-Finance Act,\t1950\n(XXV of 19,50), s. 13.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe Income-tax Officer found that the respondents' books  of\naccounts  were\tunreliable and after  assessing\t income\t for\nFasli  year 1357, corresponding to the year 1946-47,  issued\nnotice to the respondents on December 22, 1949, under s.  40\nof  the Hyderabad Income-tax Act to show cause\twhy  penalty\nshould not be levied in addition to the tax and by an  order\ndated  October\t31,  1951,  directed  payment  of  the\tsaid\npenalty.   The\tState of Hyderabad merged  with\t the  Indian\nUnion  during  the pendency of the  proceedings\t before\t the\nIncome-tax  Officer and by s. 13 of the Finance\t Act,  1950,\nthe  Hyderabad\tIncome-tax Act ceased to  have\teffect\tfrom\nApril  1, 1950, but the operation of that Act in respect  of\nlevy, assessment and collection of income-tax and  super-tax\nin  respect of periods prior thereto for which liability  to\nincome-tax could not be imposed under the Indian  Income-tax\nAct, was saved.\t The question was whether (a) the Income-tax\nOfficer\t had power on October 31, 1951, to impose a  penalty\nunder  S.  40(1)  of the Hyderabad Income-tax  Act  and\t (b)\nwhether the assessee had a right to appeal against the order\nof  the Income-tax Officer imposing penalty and whether\t the\nAppellate  Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction  to\thear\nappeals or whether his order was a nullity.\nHeld,  that the power of the Income-tax Officer to impose  a\npenalty\t under s. 40(1) of the Hyderabad Income-tax  Act  in\nrespect of the year preceding the date of the repeal of\t the\nHyderabad  Income-tax Act was not lost because by s.  13  of\nthe  Finance Act, 1950,,for the operation by  the  Hyderabad\nIncome-tax Act in respect of levy, assessment and collection\nof  income-tax and super-tax in respect of periods prior  to\nApril, 1951, for which liability to income-tax could not  be\nimposed\t under the Indian Income-tax Act, was saved  and  so\nthe proceedings for imposing the penalty could be  continued\nafter  the enactment of s. 13(1) of the Indian Finance\tAct,\n1950.\nHeld,  that the appeal against the order of  the  Income-tax\nOfficer on the ground that he was not competent to pass\t the\norder did lie to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, whose\njurisdiction was not made conditional upon the competence of\nthe\n924\nIncome-tax Officer to pass the. orders made appealable; as a\ncourt  of  appeal  he  had  jurisdiction  to  determine\t the\nsoundness  of\t the conclusions of the\t Income-tax  Officer\nboth  on  the question of fact and law and even\t as  to\t his\njurisdiction  to  pass the order    appealed  from,  and his\norder was not a nullity.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 434 of 1960.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nOctober\t 4, 1956, of the Hyderabad High Court in I.T.R.\t No.
\n116\/5 of 1954-55.\n<\/p>\n
K.   N. Rajagopal Sastri and D. Gupta, for the appellant.
\nA,  V.\tViswanatha Sastri, S.N. Andley,\t J.  B.\t Dadachanji,
\nRameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the respondents.
\n1961.  February 22.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nSHAH,  J.-M\/s. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co.-herein.  after  called
\nthe assessees-owned an oil mill at Khammamath in the area of
\nthe  former State of Hyderabad.\t For the year of  assessment
\nFasli  1357  (October 1, 1946, to September 30,\t 1947),\t the
\nassessees  returned an income of Rs. 50,384\/-.\tThe  Income-
\ntax  Officer found that the books of account  maintained  by
\nthe  assessees\twere  unreliable  and  by  his\torder  dated
\nFebruary  10,  1950, he assessed their total income  at\t Rs.
\n1,63,131\/-.   The Income-tax Officer had, before  finalising
\nthe assessment, issued on December 22, 1949, a notice to the
\nassessees  under  s.  40 of  the  Hyderabad  Income-tax\t Act
\nrequiring  them\t to  show cause why penalty  should  not  be
\nimposed\t upon  them  and by order dated\t October  31,  1951,
\ndirected the assessees to pay by way of penalty Rs. 42,000\/-
\nin addition to the tax.\t This order was confirmed in  appeal
\nby  the\t Appellate Assistant Commissioner.  In\tappeal,\t the
\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal observed that by virtue of the
\nprovisions of s. 13 (1) of the Indian Finance Act, 1950, the
\nHyderabad  Income-tax Act had ceased to have effect  and  as
\nthe  power  to impose penalty under s. 40 of  the  Hyderabad
\nIncome-tax Act was not saved, the order imposing penalty was
\nwithout jurisdiction, The Tribunal observed;\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    925<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      ”\t The  Income-tax Officer may  have  been  in
\n\t      error  in imposing the penalty, but there\t was
\n\t      no appeal against the order of the  Income-tax
\n\t      Officer\t to    the    Appellate\t   Assistant
\n\t      Commissioner.  Section 42(1) of the  Hyderabad
\n\t      Income-tax Act gives a right to an assessee to
\n\t      appeal  if he objects to an order under s.  40
\n\t      made  by\tan Income-tax Officer.\t Section  40
\n\t      ceased to have effect.  There can therefore be
\n\t      neither  an  order under s. 40 nor  an  appeal
\n\t      against the order if an order.has been wrongly
\n\t      made.    The  remedy  of\tthe  assessee\tlies
\n\t      elsewhere, and not by way of an appeal to\t the
\n\t      Appellate Assistant Commissioner,”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and  on that view dismissed the appeal.\t At the instance  of
\nthe assessees, the following questions were referred by\t the
\nTribunal to the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad\n<\/p>\n
1.   Whether   on   31-10-1951,\t the   Income-tax   Officer,
\nWarrangal Circle, had the power to impose a penalty under s.
\n40(1)  of  the Hyderabad Income-tax Act in  respect  of\t the
\nassessment for the year 1357 F. ?\n<\/p>\n
2.   Whether the assessee had a right to appeal against\t the
\norder of the Income-tax Officer imposing the penalty ?\n<\/p>\n
3.   If\t the Appellate Assistant Commissioner did  not\thave
\njurisdiction  to hear the appeal, whether the order  of\t the
\nAppellate Assistant Commissioner is a nullity and  therefore
\nthe order of the Income-tax Officer erroneous, though it may
\nstand until it is set aside by a competent authority ?
\nThe High Court answered the first and the third questions in
\nthe  negative  and the second question in  the\taffirmative.
\nThe  High  Court  observed  that  the  Appellate   Assistant
\nCommissioner had power to entertain the appeal in which\t the
\nquestion of the power of the Income-tax Officer to impose  a
\npenalty\t was challenged, and the decision of  the  Appellate
\nAssistant  Commissioner was not without\t jurisdiction.\t The
\nHigh Court also proceeded in a petition separately filed  by
\nthe assessees to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to
\nset  aside  the order of the Income-tax Officer\t imposing  a
\npenalty as a logical
\n926<\/span>
\nconsequence of the view the Tribunal had taken regarding the
\nabsence\t of  power  in\tthe Income-tax\tOfficer\t to  levy  a
\npenalty.   Against the order passed by the High Court,\tthis
\nappeal with special leave is preferred.\n<\/p>\n
We  are in agreement with the High Court that the appeal  to
\nthe Appellate Assistant Commissioner was competent.  Even if
\nthe  Income-tax\t Officer committed an error in\tpassing\t the
\norder imposing penalty because the conditions necessary\t for
\ninvoking  that jurisdiction were absent, an  appeal  against
\nhis  order on the ground that he was not competent  to\tpass
\nthe  order did lie to the Appellate Assistant  Commissioner.
\nThe  Appellate\tAssistant  Commissioner\t is  under  the\t Act
\nconstituted an appellate authority against certain orders of
\nthe Income-tax Officer, and exercise of that jurisdiction is
\nnot  made conditional upon the competence of the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t to pass the orders made appealable.  The  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner had as a court of appeal jurisdiction
\nto determine the soundness of the conclusions of the Income-
\ntax Officer both on questions of fact and law and even as to
\nhis jurisdiction to pass the order appealed from.
\nWe  are, however, unable to agree with the High\t Court\tthat
\nbecause of the repeal of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act by the
\nFinance Act, 1950, the power to impose a penalty in  respect
\nof  the\t years preceding the date of repeal was\t lost.\t The
\nState  of Hyderabad merged with the Indian Union during\t the
\npendency  of the proceedings before the Income-tax  Officer.
\nThereafter  the Indian Legislature enacted the Finance\tAct,
\n1950,  which by sub-section (1) of s. 13 in so far as it  is
\nmaterial provided:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” If immediately before the 1st day of  April,
\n\t      1950,  there  is\tin  force  in  any  part   B
\n\t      State….\t any law relating to  income-tax  or
\n\t      super-tax….  that  law shall cease  to\thave
\n\t      effect  except for the purposes of  the  levy,
\n\t      assessment  and collection of  income-tax\t and
\n\t      super-tax\t  in  respect  of  any\tperiod\t not
\n\t      included in the previous year for the purposes
\n\t      of assessment under the Indian Income-tax Act,
\n\t      1922…”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
927<\/span><\/p>\n
Manifestly, by s. 13, the Hyderabad Income-tax Act ceased to
\nhave  effect  as from April 1, 1950.  But the  operation  of
\nthat  Act in respect of levy, assessment and  collection  of
\nincome-tax and super-tax in respect of periods prior thereto
\nfor which liability to Income-tax could not be imposed under
\nthe  Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was saved.   The  Judicial
\nCommittee  of the Privy Council in Commissioner\t of  Income-
\ntax, Bombay Presidency and Aden v. Messrs.  Khemchand Ramdas
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t      ” One of the peculiarities of most  Income-tax
\n\t      Acts is that the word ‘assessment’ is used  as
\n\t      meaning  sometimes the computation of  income,
\n\t      sometimes\t the determination of the amount  of
\n\t      tax payable and sometimes the whole  procedure
\n\t      laid  down in the Act for\t imposing  liability
\n\t      upon the tax payer.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Hyderabad\tIncome-tax  Act also  used  the\t expression”
\nassessment ” in different senses.  In certain sections,\t for
\ninstance  ss.  31 and 39 the expression is used\t as  in\t the
\nsense of mere computation of income; in other sections it is
\nused  in  the  sense of determination of  liability  and  in
\ncertain\t other\tsections  in  the  sense  of  machinery\t for
\nimposing  liability  and procedure in  that  behalf.”By\t the
\nFinance\t  Act,\t1950,  the  Hyderabad  Income-tax  Act\t was
\nexpressly kept alive in respect of periods which include the
\nassessment year in question for purposes of levy, assessment
\nand collection of income-tax.  The High Court expressed\t the
\nview  that the word “assessment” in S. 13 (1)  included\t the
\nwhole procedure for imposing liability upon the taxpayer but
\nnot  to the procedure for imposing a penalty.  They  thought
\nthat  the Hyderabad Income-tax Act dealt with  liability  to
\npay  income-tax\t and penalty in\t distinct  provisions,\tboth
\nrelating  to  imposition  and  recovery\t and  that  if\t the
\nLegislature had intended to keep alive the Hyderabad Income-
\ntax Act for all purposes including the levy of penalty\twith
\nrespect\t to any particular year or years of  assessment,  it
\ncould have said so in terms clear and unambiguous instead of
\nlimiting  the  operation  only to  ”  levy,  assessment\t and
\ncollection.”  In the view of the High Court,  imposition  of
\npenalty
\n(1)  (1938) L.R. 65 I.A. 236; [1938] 6 I.T.R. 414.\n<\/p>\n
928<\/span><\/p>\n
was  not a necessary concomitant or incident of the  process
\nof assessment, levy and collection of tax.
\nThe  High Court proceeded upon the view that by\t saving\t the
\nHyderabad   Income-tax\tAct  for  the  purposes.  of   levy,
\nassessment   and  collection  of  income-tax,\tthe   entire
\nprocedure  for\timposing  liability  to\t pay  tax  and.\t for
\ncollection  of\ttax was saved, but penalty  not\t being\ttax,
\nprovisions  relating  to  imposition of\t and  collection  of
\npenalty did not survive the repeal of the Hyderabad  Income-
\ntax Act.\n<\/p>\n
This  Court  considered in C. A. Abraham v.  The  Income-tax
\nOfficer,  Kottayam<\/a>(1) the question whether the expression  ”
\nassessment  ” as used in s. 44 of the Indian Income-tax\t Act
\nincluded the procedure for imposition of penalty in  respect
\nof a dissolved firm and it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  expression\t‘assessment’ used  in  these
\n\t      sections (provisions of Ch.  IV of the  Indian
\n\t      Income-tax  Act)\tis not used  merely  in\t the
\n\t      sense of computation of income and there is in
\n\t      our  judgment no ground for holding that\twhen
\n\t      by s. 44, it is declared that the partners  or
\n\t      members  of the association shall\t be  jointly
\n\t      and severally liable to assessment, it is only
\n\t      intended\t to   declare\tthe   liability\t  to
\n\t      computation  of income under s. 23 and not  to
\n\t      the   application\t  of   the   procedure\t for
\n\t      declaration  and imposition of  tax  liability
\n\t      and the machinery for enforcement thereof.  By
\n\t      s.  28,  the liability to pay  additional\t tax
\n\t      which is designated penalty is imposed in view
\n\t      of  the dishonest or contumacious\t conduct  of
\n\t      the assessee.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  court  regarded penalty as an additional\ttax  imposed
\nupon  a\t person\t in view of his\t dishonest  or\tcontumacious
\nconduct.   It  is true that under the  Hyderabad  Income-tax
\nAct,  distinct provisions are made for recovery of  tax\t due
\nand  penalty,  but that in our judgment does not  alter\t the
\ntrue  character of penalty imposed under the two Acts.\t Nor
\nare  we\t able to agree that because in respect of  the\tSea,
\nCustoms\t Act,  1878, the Indian Tariff Act, 1934,  the\tLand
\nCustoms\t Act, 1924, the Central Excise and Salt\t Act,  1944,
\nand the Indian Post Offices Act, 1898, which were extended
\n(1)  [1961] 2 S.C.R. 765.\n<\/p>\n
929<\/span><\/p>\n
to the whole of India by s. 11 of the Finance Act, 1950, and
\nthe  provisions corresponding thereto were repealed  by\t the
\nproviso,  and  it was expressly provided that  the  previous
\noperation   of\tthe  corresponding  law\t or   any   penalty,
\nforfeiture  or punishment ordered in respect of\t an  offence
\ncommitted  against any such law or any investigation,  legal
\nproceeding or remedy in respect of such penalty,  forfeiture
\nor punishment or any such investigation, legal proceeding or
\nremedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such
\npenalty,  forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if\t the
\nAct  had not been passed, that under sub-s. (1) of s. 13  it
\nwas intended to prohibit the authorities otherwise competent
\nin that behalf fro` commencing or continuing the  proceeding
\nfor levying penalty even if the circumstances justify such a
\ncourse.\t  The scheme of the statutes specified in s. 11\t and
\nwhich  are  repealed  by sub-s. (2) of s.  13  are  somewhat
\ndifferent  from\t the scheme of the  Indian  Income-tax\tAct.
\nBecause by sub-s. (1) of s. 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, the
\nHyderabad Income-tax Act was to cease to operate as on April
\n1,  1950,  except for the purposes of levy,  assessment\t and
\ncollection  of income-tax and super-tax, whereas in  respect
\nof  other Acts specified in s. 11  substantially  provisions
\nsimilar\t to those contained in s. 6 of the  General  Clauses
\nAct were enacted, an intention that proceedings for  penalty
\nmay  be commenced and continued under the Acts specified  in
\nS.  11,\t whereas  no such proceedings may  be  commenced  or
\ncontinued   under  the\tHyderabad  Income-tax  Act  is\t not
\nindicated.  We are of the view that the High Court erred  in
\nholding that the proceedings for imposing the penalty  could
\nnot  be\t continued after the enactment of s. 13 (1)  of\t the
\nFinance Act, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
 The appeal will therefore be allowed and the answer to\t the
\nfirst question will be recorded in the affirmative,.  On the
\nview  taken by us, it is unnecessary to pass,any  orders  on
\nthe  petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution  which\t was
\npresented to the High Court.  The appellant will be entitled
\nto  his\t costs of the appeal in this Court and in  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
930<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of … vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1961 AIR 1265, 1961 SCR (3) 923 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT: MIS. BHIKAJI DADABHAI & CO. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/02\/1961 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. KAPUR, […]<\/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-9879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961 - 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-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-27T02:42:18+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=\"12 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-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of … vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T02:42:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961\"},\"wordCount\":1998,\"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-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-27T02:42:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of … vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961\"}]},{\"@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 ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961 - 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-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-27T02:42:18+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of … vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961","datePublished":"1961-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T02:42:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961"},"wordCount":1998,"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-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961","name":"Commissioner Of ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-27T02:42:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-vs-mis-bhikaji-dadabhai-co-on-22-february-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of … vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961"}]},{"@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\/9879","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=9879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}