HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Income-tax Officer & Another, Bombay v. Simplex Mills Ltd., Bombay
Civil Appeal No. 165 of 1962
[1963] Supp 2 SCR 162 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 18A(1), 18A(5), 18A(8), 18A(11), 34 and 35
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by A. K. Sarkar, J. · S. K. Das, J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · A. K. Sarkar, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · Raghubar Dayal, J.
Assessment years: 1952-53
01 · Facts of the case
After regular assessment produced an advance-tax refund, the government paid Rs.14,720-14-0 interest under the then law. A later retrospective amendment reduced the amount to Rs.9,404-5-0. The officer invoked section 34, alleging under-assessment or excessive relief, to recover the difference (SCR pp.162-165; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The case involved provisional over-payment of tax, not under-assessed income. Interest paid by the government on that excess was not a relief allowed in computing income, nor part of tax payable by the assessee. Section 34 therefore supplied no recovery jurisdiction; a belated section 35 theory was not entertained (SCR pp.165-168; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court dismissed Revenue's appeal with costs (SCR p.168; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee: the section 34 recovery order remained quashed (SCR pp.167-168; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: classify the alleged excess precisely—income assessment, tax computation, statutory interest or refund administration—before choosing a recovery power. Current refund-interest and erroneous-refund provisions require separate review (based on SCR pp.166-168; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and seven-page count match catalogue asset S_1963_2_162_168; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The ruling applies advance-tax interest and reassessment provisions of the repealed 1922 Act; no current refund-interest recovery rule is represented.
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.