HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Income-tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwandas, Lakhimpur Kheri
Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1962
[1964] 6 SCR 411 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 22(2), 22(4), 23(3), 23(4), 27, 31, 33, 33A, 33B, 34(1)(a), second proviso to section 34(3), 66 and 66A · Constitution of India: article 14 (addressed in the dissent)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench (3:2) · B. P. Sinha, C.J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · Raghubar Dayal, J. (dissenting) · N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. · J. R. Mudholkar, J. (dissenting)
Assessment years: 1949-50, 1948-49
01 · Facts of the case
The respondent firm was first assessed ex parte under section 23(4) for assessment year 1949-50. Before that assessment was cancelled under section 27, the officer found Rs. 88,737 of interest represented by U.P. Encumbered Estates Act bonds received in discharge of third-party debts and issued a section 34(1)(a) notice for 1949-50. After cancellation, the officer included the amount in the fresh 1949-50 assessment. On 4 December 1957 the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the bonds had been received in the previous accounting period, deleted the amount from 1949-50, and directed the officer to assess it for 1948-49. Acting on that direction, the officer served a new section 34 notice for 1948-49 on 5 December 1957. The Allahabad High Court quashed it as beyond the ordinary limitation period (SCR pp.411-416; PDF pp.1-6).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
For the majority, section 34(3)'s second proviso removed a limitation bar only so that a lawful appellate, revisional or reference order could be implemented; it did not enlarge the jurisdiction conferred by sections 31, 33, 33B, 66 or 66A. Because the assessment year is the statutory unit, relief and directions in an appeal ordinarily concern the year under review (SCR pp.416-422; PDF pp.6-12). A 'finding' was a determination of a material issue necessary to dispose of that appeal, not an incidental view on another year. Here it was necessary to find only that the interest did not belong in 1949-50; locating it in 1948-49 was incidental. A 'direction' likewise meant one authorised by the governing appellate provision, and 'any person' remained confined to someone intimately connected with the same year's assessment and income (SCR pp.422-426; PDF pp.12-16). Mudholkar J.'s dissent treated the appellate conclusion on the true year of receipt as a competent finding, read the proviso as lifting limitation for the consequential 1948-49 proceeding, and rejected the article 14 attack on the resulting classification (SCR pp.426-437; PDF pp.16-27).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The majority held that the second proviso to section 34(3) did not save limitation for escaped income of a year other than the year under appeal. The 1948-49 section 34(1)(a) notice was therefore clearly barred. The Court dismissed Revenue's appeal with costs. Raghubar Dayal and Mudholkar JJ. dissented and would have allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court's writ, and left the completed reassessment to stand subject to lawful proceedings (SCR pp.426 and 437; PDF pp.16 and 27).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessee/respondent by a 3:2 majority. The cross-year reassessment notice remained quashed as time-barred; this was a final limitation ruling, not a remand or a merits determination that the Rs. 88,737 could never be taxable in the proper year (SCR pp.426 and 437; PDF pp.16 and 27).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: map the year actually under appeal, identify the exact issue necessary to dispose of that appeal, and separate it from observations about a different year or taxpayer. Then test whether the appellate body had statutory power to give the stated direction before relying on any exception to limitation. Preserve the distinction between a necessary finding, an incidental observation, and a lawful direction; also preserve the 3:2 split and the repealed 1922 Act setting. Do not treat the no-res-judicata principle as an independent power to reopen, and do not apply the result to present reassessment law without a fresh statute-and-precedent review (based on SCR pp.420-426 and 429-437; PDF pp.10-16 and 19-27).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 27-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote and adjacent-report boundary text were distinguished from the judicial opinion and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 27-page count match catalogue asset 1964_6_411_437; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 130 of 1962, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
- No published or archived standalone AKHB note with this source hash, case identity and operative decision was found.
Statutory scope
The Court construed the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, including section 34 as amended by the 1953 and 1956 legislation, in relation to assessment years 1949-50 and 1948-49. The decision does not certify the operation of the Income-tax Act, 1961, later limitation provisions, or current reassessment law.
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.