HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Mehta Parikh & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
Civil Appeal 81 of 1954
[1956] 1 SCR 626 ·
Income-tax Act 1922, sections 23(3), 26A, 66
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · S. R. Das C.J. · Bhagwati · Venkatarama Ayyar
Assessment years: 1947–48; accounting year calendar 1946
01 · Facts of the case
The firm encashed sixty-one Rs. 1,000 notes after demonetisation. Its accepted cash book and three affidavits supported its explanation. The Tribunal nevertheless treated Rs. 30,000 as concealed income after allowing the balance.
Source: Primary report: SCR 629–634
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The accepted accounts were not further impeached and deponents were not called for cross-examination. The partial rejection had no evidentiary basis and rested on conjecture. Bhagwati, with Das C.J., explained legal review of unsupported factual findings; Venkatarama Ayyar concurred specifically on absence of evidence and binding accepted accounts.
Source: Primary report: SCR 634–638
03 · Judicial decision
Appeal allowed; first referred question answered negatively: no material justified the Rs. 30,000 addition for income-tax, excess-profits-tax or business-profits-tax purposes. Assessee awarded costs here and below.
Source: Primary report: SCR 637–638
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Assessee succeeded.
Source: Primary report: SCR 637–638
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
An unreasoned numerical compromise cannot substitute for evidence. The affidavit conclusion is tied to accepted accounts, reasonable explanation and no attempt to test the evidence; do not present it as automatic acceptance of every affidavit.
Source: Primary report: SCR 634–638
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 13-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
Statutory scope
Historical legislation expressly identified in this note. This is not a decision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Income-tax Act, 2025. Verify enacted wording, commencement, transition and subsequent judicial treatment independently before modern reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-23. Subsequent treatment and present-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 uses AI assistance and a preserved full-primary review, with refreshed exact original-byte verification. 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. AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.