HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan v. The Mewar Textile Mills Ltd.
Civil Appeal No. 969 of 1964
[1966] 3 SCR 34 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 66(1) and 66A(2) · Income-tax Act, 1961: section 261 (certificate jurisdiction)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: 1943-44
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1943-44, Mewar Textile Mills disputed tax on Rs.2,73,488 representing goods sold on railway receipts in the consignees' names, with price received by the assessee's bankers in British India. The Tribunal excluded the item, reasoning that delivery, appropriation and passage of title occurred in Bhilwara and that the bankers receiving payment were the consignees' agents. The Rajasthan High Court mentioned the item but did not decide its taxability while addressing other receipts. Revenue appealed, and the assessee relied on six documents that the Tribunal had annexed to its section 66(1) statement of case without mentioning or discussing them in its appellate order or the body of the statement.
Source: AY 1943-44 item, Tribunal treatment and High Court omission: SCR pp.35-37 / PDF pp.2-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court declined either to determine taxability from the existing record or to treat the six annexures as an adequate factual foundation. The relevant facts were unclear and counsel could not agree on them, so adjudication by the Supreme Court would have been unsafe. It also stated a procedural rule for section 66 references: a Tribunal should not attach fresh documents, apart from the proceedings of the income-tax authorities, that were neither mentioned nor discussed in its appellate order or statement of case. If a High Court decided a dispute about such material, it would be deciding questions the Tribunal had not decided and that lay outside the High Court's advisory jurisdiction.
Source: Need for remand because facts were unclear: SCR p.37 / PDF p.4; Limits on documents annexed to a section 66 statement: SCR p.38 / PDF p.5
03 · Judicial decision
The Court accepted Revenue's appeal, set aside the Rajasthan High Court's order insofar as it concerned AY 1943-44 and remanded the reference for disposal according to law. It made no order as to costs and did not determine whether the disputed Rs.2,73,488 was taxable.
Source: Operative remand and no-costs order: SCR p.39 / PDF p.6
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue only as to procedural relief. Revenue obtained a remand and removal of the High Court's AY 1943-44 disposition, but no party obtained a Supreme Court ruling on the merits or taxability of the disputed sales amount.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in a statutory reference, build the factual record at the Tribunal stage and ensure every document needed for a legal question is identified and discussed in the appellate order or statement of case. A remand based on an inadequate record should not be cited as deciding the substantive taxability issue. For current proceedings, verify the governing appeal/reference provisions and modern record-admission rules separately.
Source: AKHB analysis source: unclear facts, reference limits and remand at SCR pp.37-39 / PDF pp.4-6
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full six-page SCR source file read. The editorial headnote on PDF p.1 was distinguished from the unnumbered judicial text beginning on PDF p.1; the complete reasons and remand order through PDF p.6 were reviewed.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and six-page count match catalogue asset 1966_3_34_39; all six pages were read and visually checked.
- The report verifies Civil Appeal No. 969 of 1964, decision on 10 December 1965, the three-member bench and AY 1943-44.
- No matching published title, citation, case number, date or source hash was found in content/supreme-court-cases.json or prior reviewed releases.
Statutory scope
The decision concerns the advisory-reference machinery of section 66 of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and a transaction arising in the former State/British India setting. It does not decide the underlying taxability question or establish the procedure under the current appellate statute.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Later treatment of the section 66 procedural rule and any present-law analogue has not been comprehensively checked; no current 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.