HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Robert J. Sas
Civil Appeals Nos. 136 to 138 of 1962
[1963] Supp. 2 SCR 209 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 23A(1), 34(1)(b), 34(3) and 66(1)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous 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: 1949-50
01 · Facts of the case
A.C.E.C. Private (India) Ltd. earned profits but declared no dividend at its 4 December 1948 shareholders' meeting. On 29 March 1954 the Income-tax Officer made a section 23A(1) order deeming undistributed income to have been divided among Paul Rouffart, Paul Victor Hermans and Robert J. Sas. Section 34 notices were served on each shareholder on 1 April 1954. After assessments and appeals, the Tribunal accepted that service fell beyond section 34(1)(b)'s four-year period; the High Court answered the referred questions against Revenue (SCR pp.209-212; PDF pp.1-4).
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Earlier Supreme Court authority had already established that section 23A itself did not provide the machinery for assessing shareholders and that assessment had to proceed under section 34, so the first referred question was not argued. On limitation, section 23A required testing distributions through the sixth month after the general meeting but expressly deemed the undistributed balance to have been distributed at the general-meeting date. The fictional receipt therefore occurred on 4 December 1948, within assessment year 1949-50, rather than on 30 June 1949. Even though a section 23A order could be made at any time, shareholder assessment remained subject to section 34(1)(b), whose four-year period ran from the end of the assessment year. The Court did not allow Revenue's section 34(3) completion-period argument because the referred question concerned timely service, not time to complete an assessment after valid service (SCR pp.212-216; PDF pp.4-8).
03 · Judicial decision
The Court upheld the High Court's answer: the section 34(1)(b) assessments made after four years from the end of assessment year 1949-50 were out of time. Revenue's appeals were dismissed with costs, with one hearing fee (SCR p.216; PDF p.8).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the three shareholder-assessees: the reassessments could not proceed on notices served outside section 34(1)(b)'s four-year period; Revenue's appeals failed (SCR p.216; PDF p.8).
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: when a charging or deeming provision uses one date to test compliance but fixes another date for the fictional receipt or accrual, limitation must be computed from the date the statute expressly assigns to the deemed event. A later administrative determination does not automatically postpone the assessment year or reopen a limitation period. For present work, map the current provision, notice regime and limitation language independently; this ruling does not transfer the 1922 Act's four-year rule into current law.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 8-page catalogue source read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; the preceding-report fragment and following-report boundary were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and eight-page count match catalogue asset S_1963_2_209_216; every source page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the title, three connected appeals, five-member bench, decision date, historical statutory issue and dismissal with costs.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket, party-title or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus, reviewed archive or disposition register.
Statutory scope
The ruling construes the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, including its former closely-held-company deemed-distribution and reassessment provisions. It does not determine limitation under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or any present deemed-dividend provision.
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.