HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa
Civil Appeal No. 297 of 1956
[1959] Supp. 1 SCR 10 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 34(1)(b), as amended in 1948
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar · P. B. Gajendragadkar · A. K. Sarkar
Assessment years: 1945-46
01 · Facts of the case
Interest on agricultural rent arrears had been excluded from assessment following the then binding Patna High Court ruling. After the Privy Council reversed that ruling in another case, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment and brought the interest to tax.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Information under section 34(1)(b) included authoritative information about the law, not only facts. Income could escape assessment even though disclosed and deliberately exempted under a legal view later displaced. Cases concerning unfinished assessment proceedings did not establish immunity for an erroneous completed assessment.
03 · Judicial decision
The Privy Council decision constituted information supporting the belief that assessable income had escaped assessment.
Source: Primary report: SCR Supp. (1) 27
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Assessee appeal dismissed with costs; the High Court’s answer sustaining reassessment was upheld.
Source: Primary report: SCR Supp. (1) 27
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Distinguish a later authoritative judicial decision from a mere change of the officer’s opinion. The Court expressly left the latter question undecided.
Source: Primary report: SCR Supp. (1) 27
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 18-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.