HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Yadvendra Dutt Dube
Civil Appeal No. 123 of 1965
[1966] 3 SCR 161 ·
U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948: sections 2(6), 14(1)-(2), 15(1), 15(3), 16, 21, 22, 24 and 25
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Three-judge bench; judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · K. Subba Rao, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J.
Assessment years: Account period 1355 Fasli (1 July 1947 to 30 June 1948, as expressly stated in the report)
01 · Facts of the case
The Sub-Divisional Officer assessed the respondent for account period 1355 Fasli although his gross agricultural income exceeded Rs.1 lakh. The Collector subsequently reassessed escaped income. The Commissioner set both assessments aside and directed fresh assessment; the Board considered the Commissioner unable to set aside the unappealed original order, but exercised its own revisional power to do so and directed fresh assessment according to law. The High Court answered against the Board's power to give that direction on 15 October 1952 in light of section 25. The State appealed.
Source: SCR162G-163G / PDFpp.2-3
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 14 confined the Assistant Collector's assessment jurisdiction to gross agricultural income not exceeding Rs.1 lakh, while the Collector could assess all cases within his revenue jurisdiction. The officer could initially determine jurisdictional facts, subject to superior correction; once he found income above the threshold, the proceedings, including his special notice, were unauthorised unless that finding was set aside. The Act and Rules provided no transfer mechanism to the Collector. The Board's order necessarily quashed the original notice as well as the assessment. On this advisory reference the Court confined itself to the fresh-assessment question, not the correctness of the prior setting-aside orders.
Source: SCR164A-168F / PDFpp.4-8
03 · Judicial decision
A general section 15(1) notice, merely assumed because the record did not mention it, could not rescue a return filed in response to an invalid special notice after the resulting proceedings had been vacated. Nor could the Collector reuse his earlier section 25 notice, which was also deemed quashed. Fresh proceedings required a fresh, timely notice: section 15(3) within the assessment year, or section 25 within one year from its end under this statutory scheme. The Board's direction could not authorise assessment outside those limits.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal, affirming the High Court's negative answer to the reference. There was no order as to costs in either the Supreme Court or the High Court. The Court expressly observed that tax otherwise lawfully due could not justify fresh proceedings contrary to statute. No fresh-assessment remand was granted.
Source: SCR169E-G / PDFp.9
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: distinguish gross-income jurisdictional thresholds from net taxable income, and reconstruct the effect of every appellate or revisional order on both the assessment and its initiating notice. Before relying on a prior return or notice, examine whether it survived and whether the governing law permits transfer, cure or fresh initiation. An order for fresh assessment is not itself an extension of limitation. Apply the historical rule only after separately checking today's enactment, statutory version, savings provisions and subsequent case law.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR166B-D and SCR167C-169G / PDFpp.6-9
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 9-page SCR report read. Reporter headnote occupies PDFp.1 and most of p.2; judicial text begins at SCR162G / PDFp.2 and ends at SCR169G / PDFp.9. There are no numbered paragraphs; SCR page and column pinpoints are used.
- All 9 source pages were read, with reporter headnotes separated from the judgment. PDFpp.1,2,8,9 were visually checked; source hash, date, docket and bench match.
- The headnote's isolated general-notice reference to section 14(1) is not followed: the judicial text and reproduced statute identify section 15(1). The original report is preserved unchanged.
Statutory scope
The Rs.1 lakh jurisdictional threshold and the notice limits belong to the historical U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act. They are not present central Income-tax jurisdiction or reassessment rules.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-14. Historical agricultural Income-tax decision. No comprehensive subsequent-treatment, review, stay or present-law verification was performed.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 9 pages
SHA-256: 2dde477868f6fd32394e91a03ba854bb5bfd79f4ccb97ed8155d97cadec88e34
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the full judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.