HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
P. V. Godbole v. Jagannath Fakirchand
Civil Appeal No. 585 of 1960
[1964] 1 SCR 130 ·
Income-tax Act, 1922: section 34(1) and second proviso to section 34(3) · Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1953: sections 18 and 31 · Constitution of India: article 14
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Five-judge bench; separate majority reasons by S. K. Das, J., J. L. Kapur, J. and A. K. Sarkar, J.; M. Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal, JJ. dissented. · S. K. Das, J. · J. L. Kapur, J. · A. K. Sarkar, J. · M. Hidayatullah, J. · Raghubar Dayal, J.
Assessment years: 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47
01 · Facts of the case
Following directions in another assessee’s appeal, the Income-tax Officer issued a section 34(1) notice on 18 February 1957 for assessment years 1944-45 through 1946-47. The respondent, who had not been a party to that proceeding, obtained a writ on the basis that reassessment was already barred (SCR pp.130-132; PDF pp.1-3).
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
S. K. Das and J. L. Kapur, JJ. held that the 1953 second proviso did not revive a power already time-barred; A. K. Sarkar, J. treated the proviso as offending Article 14. M. Hidayatullah and Raghubar Dayal, JJ. would have upheld the notice under the amendment provisions (SCR pp.131-136; PDF pp.2-7).
03 · Judicial decision
By the 3:2 majority, the reassessment proceedings were not saved and the Revenue appeal was dismissed with costs.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee under the historical section 34 regime.
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify both the date limitation expired and the exact saving provision relied upon. For split authorities, preserve each majority route and the dissent instead of presenting a single undifferentiated rationale.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete seven-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and seven-page count verified; all pages were read and visually inspected.
- Identity, bench, statutory issue, reasoning and operative result were checked against the complete report.
Statutory scope
The decision concerns the repealed 1922 Act and amendment provisions. The majority grounds drew on companion decisions; no current reassessment limitation rule is stated.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive current-law or later-treatment 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.