HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Shri Kanhaiyalal Lohia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal
Civil Appeals Nos. 347 to 350 of 1960
[1962] 2 SCR 839 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 22(2), 22(4), 26A, 34, 66(1), 66(2) and 66A · Constitution of India: Article 136
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by M. Hidayatullah, J. · S. K. Das, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J.
Assessment years: 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47
01 · Facts of the case
A jute dealer claimed gifts totalling Rs.7,61,101 and transfer of purchasing centres to his brother and nephew. The Tribunal restored inclusion of the business income in his assessment. The High Court answered the referred question against him and refused further reference; neither order was appealed, and he instead challenged the Tribunal directly (SCR pp.840-844; PDF pp.2-6).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The statutory reference route could not ordinarily be bypassed once the High Court orders became final. Exceptional Article 136 intervention remained possible for circumstances not correctable through a stated question. Here, counsel obtained the adverse witness statement and requested cross-examination but failed to attend when it was offered; no natural-justice breach was shown. The Tribunal's sham-gift finding was not perverse on the evidence (SCR pp.844-847; PDF pp.6-9).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The four appeals were held incompetent and dismissed with one set of costs (SCR p.847; PDF p.9).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on maintainability. The Court also rejected the asserted procedural injustice and perversity that were invoked to justify exceptional intervention (SCR pp.845-847; PDF pp.7-9).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: preserve the correct appellate route and challenge each adverse reference order. A natural-justice objection should identify an opportunity actually denied; failure to use a supplied statement and offered cross-examination may defeat that objection. This case does not dispense with disclosure or cross-examination generally.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 9-page SCR asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; no adjacent report included. Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 9 pages verified; no same-judgment publication, source-hash, citation or docket match found.
- Catalogue source 1962_2_839_847: SHA-256 d38600ead73dad9bb331f88257036196a1dfe8d8574aee7502ddd8565620524e, 9 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- The published original preserves the exact catalogue bytes and verified hash.
- The source verifies identity, bench, provisions, opinion structure and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment publication match was found.
Statutory scope
Historical 1922 Act reference procedure and fact-specific Article 136 ruling; no current appeal-procedure or later-treatment clearance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability have not been comprehensively checked; no current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.