HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay and Another v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and Others
Civil Appeals Nos. 1003 and 1004 of 1963
[1966] 1 SCR 190 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 18A, 23B, 33A and 35; rule 48 · Constitution of India: Articles 132, 133, 134, 136 and 226
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; 4:1 majority by J. C. Shah, J.; J. R. Mudholkar, J. dissenting on the tax merits. · P. B. Gajendragadkar, C.J. · K. N. Wanchoo, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · J. R. Mudholkar, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1948-49
01 · Facts of the case
The regular assessment omitted section 18A(6) interest. After audit, the officer rectified and added Rs.14,929-10-0; the Commissioner sustained liability but shortened the period. The High Court quashed the orders, leading to certificate appeals (SCR pp.192-193; PDF pp.3-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
A tax writ protecting civil rights was a civil proceeding under Article 133. On merits, the majority read the retrospectively effective fifth proviso with later rule 48 and held waiver/reduction discretion had to be considered before treating the omission as an apparent mistake. Mudholkar J. saw an obvious oversight and would uphold rectification (SCR pp.193-209; PDF pp.4-20).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue's appeals were dismissed with costs and one hearing fee; the 4:1 majority left the High Court quashing intact (SCR pp.205, 209; PDF pp.16, 20).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the assessees on procedure, without a declaration that interest could never be charged (SCR pp.200-205; PDF pp.11-16).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: where retrospective discretion depends on prescribed rules, read the enabling provision and rule together from the deemed date. Verify discretionary waiver before rectifying an omitted interest charge; preserve the dissent and jurisdiction ruling (based on SCR pp.193-209; PDF pp.4-20).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 20-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Catalogue source 1966_1_190_209: SHA-256 0ee95ba68e8c67a956e1b4808ca2b49e6516424c28143829eae01ff7a5df1806, 20 pages, read and visually inspected in full.
- The published original preserves the exact catalogue bytes and verified hash.
- The source verifies identity, bench, provisions, material opinion split and operative order.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment publication match was found.
Statutory scope
Historical advance-tax interest, rectification and constitutional certificate-appeal rules do not state current 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.