HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Income-tax Officer, Madras v. S. K. Habibullah, Madras
Civil Appeals Nos. 557 and 558 of 1960
[1962] Supp. 2 SCR 716 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 23(3), 35(1) and 35(5) · Indian Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953: section 19 · Constitution of India: Article 226
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · S. K. Das, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. C. Shah, J.
Assessment years: 1946-47, 1947-48
01 · Facts of the case
S. K. Mohideen estimated shares of losses from two registered firms in his individual returns. His assessments and the firms' assessments were completed before section 35(5) took effect. After later notices the officer reduced the individual losses; Mohideen's son Habibullah challenged after his father's death (SCR pp.717-719; PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Consent could not confer jurisdiction. A firm and partner were distinct assessment entities, so a discrepancy in the firm record was not apparent in the partner record under section 35(1). Section 35(5) created an additional substantive fiction and did not reach firm assessments completed before 1 April 1952 (SCR pp.719-726; PDF pp.4-11).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue's appeals were dismissed with costs and one hearing fee; the High Court's quashing of rectification remained (SCR p.726; PDF p.11).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee side on jurisdiction; arithmetic correctness of the loss allocations was not decided (SCR pp.725-726; PDF pp.10-11).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify the legally relevant record, statutory fiction, trigger date and amendment reach. Neither a file reservation nor taxpayer consent substitutes for statutory rectification power.
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 11-page SCR asset read and visually inspected; the following report fragment on physical p.11 was excluded.
- Catalogue source S_1962_2_716_726: SHA-256 3afefce13076c9645a6da2b11a122f22fa8476fa7ed482958d2a61b1f5f0a5b4, 11 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 section 35 and its 1953 amendment do not automatically interpret current section 154 or partnership machinery.
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.