HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Dwarkanath, Hindu Undivided Family v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Kanpur and Another
Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1964
[1965] 3 SCR 536 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 12B, 23(3), 29, 30, 33A(2), 35 · Constitution of India: article 226
Holding and result. Because no appeal lay from the officer’s bare computation, section 33A(2) revision was available and judicial in character; the Commissioner’s refusal was quashed and mandamus issued requiring an order and section 29 demand notice.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Three-judge bench; judgment delivered by K. Subba Rao, J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1948-49
01 · Facts of the case
An HUF partner sold 11,230 shares as part of a transaction also involving surrender of managing-agency rights. After the Tribunal redirected assessment from business income to capital gains, the officer recomputed the amount but passed no section 23(3) order and issued no section 29 demand. An appeal was rejected as incompetent; the Commissioner rejected section 33A(2) revision and the High Court dismissed the writ in limine.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 33A(2) barred revision where an appeal lay in the specified circumstances; here the absence of an appealable order meant revision remained open. That jurisdiction was quasi-judicial and required judicial consideration. The officer’s fresh calculation created a statutory duty to pass an order and issue the prescribed demand. The supporting affidavit was adequate, and even a curable defect should not have caused summary dismissal. A parallel Bombay ruling on the same transaction made the merits issue arguable, not decided.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The Commissioner had revisional jurisdiction and the officer had failed to discharge the section 29 duty after the fresh computation.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
High Court order set aside; certiorari quashed the Commissioner’s order and mandamus directed the officer to pass an order and issue a lawful demand notice. Assessee awarded costs throughout.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: confirm whether an appeal actually lies before treating revision as barred, and insist on the formal order and demand that activate appellate remedies. This procedural victory did not settle the share-versus-agency allocation or final capital-gains quantum.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 14-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 14-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.