HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Kshetra Mohan-Sannyasi Charan Sadhukhan v Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, West Bengal
Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1952
[1954] SCR 268 ·
Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940, sections 7 and 8(1) · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, section 26-A
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench · Patanjali Sastri CJI · S. R. Das J. (author) · Vivian Bose J. · Ghulam Hasan J. · N. H. Bhagwati J.
Assessment years: 14 April 1943–13 April 1944, 14 April 1944–13 April 1945, 14 April 1945–31 March 1946
01 · Facts of the case
A business earlier carried on by representatives of two Dayabhaga families became a partnership of eight separated members. The new firm sought to carry forward earlier deficiencies exceeding Rs. 84,000.
Source: Primary report: SCR 270–273
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Was there a change in persons carrying on the business under section 8, preventing that carry-forward? A partnership of family kartas is legally a partnership of those individuals, not automatically of every family member. The binding factual statement and contemporaneous documents established two partners before disruption and eight thereafter. The assessee could not replace those findings with a new factual theory on reference. The resulting change attracted section 8.
03 · Judicial decision
The appeal was dismissed with costs; the High Court’s affirmative answer stood. Earlier deficiencies were not available to the changed business.
Source: Primary report: SCR 276
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue. The appeal was dismissed with costs; the High Court’s affirmative answer stood. Earlier deficiencies were not available to the changed business.
Source: Primary report: SCR 276
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Identify actual partners and preserve evidence of constitution at each stage. Popular descriptions of a family partnership do not establish individual membership. The minor’s later majority issue was unnecessary and not decided.
Source: Primary report: SCR 274–276
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Nine pages / SCR 268–276. First page begins with Thiagaraja Chetty ending before target caption.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory text and assessment period only. Present statutory equivalence and later judicial treatment are not cleared.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-19. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.