HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
The Petlad Turkey Red Dye Works Co. Ltd., Petlad v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Ahmedabad
Civil Appeals Nos. 158 and 159 of 1962
[1963] Supp. 1 SCR 871 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 66 and 66A(2)
Holding and result. A section 66 reference permitted a supplemental statement only from facts already admitted or found; the High Court could not direct fresh evidence, its interlocutory order was not independently appealable, and the merits reference was remitted for a lawful decision.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Five-judge bench; judgment delivered by J. L. Kapur, J. · S. K. Das, J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · A. K. Sarkar, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · Raghubar Dayal, J.
Assessment years: 1941-42, 1942-43
01 · Facts of the case
The non-resident dyeing company received cheques, drafts and hundis at Petlad for British India sales and sent them to creditors or bankers in British India. The Tribunal held the receipts taxable. On reference, the High Court required a supplemental statement after further evidence about whether the post office acted as agent, then answered against the assessee.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The High Court’s request for a supplemental statement was interlocutory, not a judgment or final order under sections 66(5) or 66A(2), so no earlier appeal was required. Its advisory jurisdiction remained confined to the question arising from the Tribunal’s order. It could seek additions or alterations based on the existing record, but could not open the door to fresh evidence.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The direction to take additional evidence exceeded section 66 jurisdiction; the reference had to be decided on a proper statement limited to facts already on record.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Both appeals allowed; matter remitted to the High Court for decision under section 66(5). The Court expressed no opinion whether a record-bound supplemental statement should be sought. Costs awarded to the assessee in both courts.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate correction or clarification of the reference record from fact-finding that changes it. A remand for procedural jurisdiction is not a merits victory on chargeability; preserve both the record boundary and the unresolved tax question.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 14-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 14-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.