HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
R. C. Mitter & Sons and connected firm v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
Civil Appeals Nos. 85 and 389 of 1957
[1959] Supp. (2) SCR 641 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 26A, 23(5), 28(2); Rules 2–6B (pre-1952)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · B. P. Sinha · J. L. Kapur · M. Hidayatullah
Assessment years: 1949-50, 1945-46, 1946-47
01 · Facts of the case
Two firms formed orally sought registration on instruments executed after the relevant accounting periods. One instrument was drawn in September 1949 for the 1949-50 assessment; the other in June 1948 for assessments 1945-46 and 1946-47. Registration was refused.
Source: Primary report: SCR 644–646
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The words constituted under include an oral partnership subsequently reduced to writing; the statute does not require inception by deed. Sinha and Kapur JJ nevertheless read the Act, Rules and prescribed form together as requiring an instrument operative during the relevant accounting year, genuine constitution and distribution in accordance with it. Hidayatullah J agreed in dismissal but expressly doubted the implied accounting-year requirement and noted Board instructions.
Source: Primary report: SCR 647–659
03 · Judicial decision
Registration was unavailable for the years claimed because the partnerships did not function under an instrument operative in the corresponding accounting year. Whether the document must exist from the very start rather than before year end was left open.
Source: Primary report: SCR 649, 658–659
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Both appeals were dismissed with costs, one set of hearing fees shared equally by the appellants.
Source: Primary report: SCR 659
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Distinguish the unanimous rejection of constituted by from the reasoning on timing, on which Hidayatullah J expressed doubts without dissenting. This concerns historical section 26A and pre-1952 rules; do not transpose its timing conditions to current firm taxation without checking the applicable statute.
Source: Primary report: SCR 647–649, 659
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 19-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.