HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Additional Income-tax Officer, Salem v. E. Alfred
Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1960
[1962] Supp. 1 SCR 143 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(2) (pre-1953 definition), 22(2), 23, 24B(1)-(3), 29, 30, 45 and 46(1) · Constitution of India: Article 226
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by M. Hidayatullah, J. · S. K. Das, J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J.
Assessment years: 1946-47
01 · Facts of the case
Ebenezer died intestate before the end of his accounting year, leaving his son E. Alfred and eight daughters. Alfred was assessed as legal representative under section 24B(2), following a section 22(2) notice. Payment defaults after demand produced penalties of Rs.250 and Rs.10,000. The Madras High Court quashed both on the view that the assessee fiction ended at assessment (SCR pp.144-146; PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 24B(1) limited the deceased taxpayer's tax liability to the available estate. Under section 24B(2), however, the representative was himself deemed an assessee: assessment encompassed computation and levy, and the fiction continued through demand and payment default. Sections 29, 45 and 46(1) consequently applied; the representative was not merely an unspecified other person under section 29. The Court expressly reserved the position under section 24B(3) (SCR pp.146-150; PDF pp.4-8).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue's appeal was allowed with costs in the Supreme Court and High Court. The Court held that penalty could be imposed on Alfred as the assessee in default (SCR p.150; PDF p.8).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on the availability of section 46(1) penalty for the representative's own payment default following a section 24B(2) assessment (SCR pp.149-150; PDF pp.7-8).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: distinguish the deceased person's estate-limited tax obligation from procedural duties and default consequences attaching to a representative treated as an assessee. Identify the applicable subsection, valid notices and the representative's own default; do not convert this narrow historical holding into universal personal liability for every heir.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 8-page SCR asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; headnote distinguished from the signed judgment beginning on PDF p.2.
- Catalogue source S_1962_1_143_150: SHA-256 886ae6d44849a44ac8ba214b13badcbaca9a9eeea100352e0d12bf76503b5708, 8 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 section 24B(2) and pre-1953 assessee definition; no current successor-liability or penalty 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.