HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax
Civil Appeals Nos. 384 and 385 of 1957
[1959] Supp. (2) SCR 301 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 5(2), 5(7A), 64(3), 64(5), 30, 33, 66
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · B. P. Sinha · J. L. Kapur · M. Hidayatullah
Assessment years: 1943-44; excess-profits chargeable accounting period ended 31 March 1943
01 · Facts of the case
A railway contractor HUF originally assessed at Rangpur had its case assigned by the Central Board to the Commissioner (Central), Calcutta. Following Calcutta assessments, the assessee challenged transfer and place of assessment in appeals. The record did not support the alleged earlier protest to the assessing officer.
Source: Primary report: SCR 303–309
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Sections 5(2) and 5(7A) operated in different, complementary spheres: allocation to Commissioners was not confined to officer-to-officer transfer powers. Section 64(5) displaced the ordinary local-place provisions for the centrally assigned case. Place objections were dealt with by the statutory administrative machinery, not the assessment appeals under sections 30 and 33.
Source: Primary report: SCR 309–315
03 · Judicial decision
The assignment under section 5(2) and Calcutta assessment were valid. A place-of-assessment question was not one arising from the Tribunal order for reference. The Court did not decide the preliminary objection based on failure to appeal the High Court refusal of reference, because the substantive appeals failed.
Source: Primary report: SCR 307, 310–315
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Both appeals were dismissed with one set of costs.
Source: Primary report: SCR 315
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Identify the exact historical allocation power and preserve a timely objection through the prescribed mechanism. This holding about place of assessment must not be enlarged into a proposition that every jurisdictional defect is unappealable under modern legislation.
Source: Primary report: SCR 308–315
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 15-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.