HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
K. C. Thomas, First Income-Tax Officer, Bombay v. Vasant Hiralal Shah and Others
Civil Appeal No. 688 of 1962
[1964] 6 SCR 437 ·
Indian Income Tax Act, 1922: section 34(1)(a), clauses (ii) and (iii) of its first proviso, and the second proviso to section 34(3) · Indian Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1953 (Act 25 of 1953) · Finance Act, 1956 (Act 18 of 1956)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge Constitution Bench · B. P. Sinha, C.J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · Raghubar Dayal, J. · N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. · J. R. Mudholkar, J.
Assessment years: 1944-45
01 · Facts of the case
The First Income-tax Officer issued the respondents a notice on 27 March 1957 under section 34(1)(a) for Rs. 47,595 of alleged escaped income in assessment year 1944-45. More than eight years had elapsed and the amount was below Rs. 1 lakh. The respondents challenged the notice, arguing that clause (iii) required Central Board of Revenue sanction. The Bombay High Court accepted that point without hearing their other pleaded grounds. The officer maintained that the notice implemented a higher income-tax authority’s direction and was protected by the second proviso to section 34(3); Commissioner sanction had been obtained (SCR pp.439–444; PDF pp.3–8).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Clause (iii)’s Central Board sanction applied to a notice issued in a case falling under clause (ii), which permitted post-eight-year action where escaped income reached Rs. 1 lakh. A below-threshold notice could not issue under clause (ii); if authorised by the second proviso to section 34(3), it fell within clause (iii)’s ‘any other case’, for which Commissioner sanction sufficed (SCR pp.441–443; PDF pp.5–7). The second proviso had been broadened in 1953 from ‘this sub-section’ to limits anywhere in ‘this section’, and revised again in 1956. Its amended language could therefore operate across section 34(1), including the limitation in clause (ii), for action taken in consequence of or to give effect to an appellate finding or direction (SCR pp.443–446; PDF pp.7–10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court allowed Revenue’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the writ matter for consideration of the respondents’ other grounds. Costs were directed to abide the remanded result (SCR p.446; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Procedurally in favour of Revenue/appellant on the issues decided. The absence of Central Board sanction did not invalidate this direction-based notice, but the Court did not finally uphold the reassessment or decide the respondents’ unargued objections (SCR pp.442–446; PDF pp.6–10).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify the precise statutory source of authority for a late notice before selecting the approval level. Keep apart a threshold-based reopening, a direction-based exception and the ultimate merits of the notice. Preserve the amendment effective dates, alleged escaped amount, elapsed period, underlying finding or direction and all grounds left open on remand (based on SCR pp.442–446; PDF pp.6–10).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 10-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote was distinguished from the judgment text and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 10-page count match catalogue asset 1964_6_437_446; the full extracted report and operative pages were reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 688 of 1962, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
- No published AKHB note or archived reviewed record with this source hash, case identity and operative decision was found.
Statutory scope
The judgment turns on successive 1953 and 1956 amendments to section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 and a notice issued to give effect to a higher authority’s direction. It does not determine current reassessment limitation, approval or direction provisions.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. 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.