HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Bombay & Others
Civil Appeals Nos. 411 to 415 of 1965
[1967] 1 SCR 463 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 10(2)(vi), 10(5)(b), 31, 33(4), 66(1) and 66A · Taxation Laws (Part B States) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1950: paragraph 2 · Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1946: rules 12, 27 and 28
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · V. Bhargava, J.
Assessment years: 1950-51, 1951-52, 1952-53
01 · Facts of the case
Hukumchand Mills, an Indore textile company, became assessable as a resident after the 1922 Act was extended to Part B States from 1 April 1950. For AYs 1950-51 to 1952-53, the dispute concerned written-down value for depreciation. The assessee said only depreciation actually allowed under the 1922 Act could reduce original cost; the Department relied on depreciation allowed under Indore Industrial Tax Rules and paragraph 2 of the 1950 Removal of Difficulties Order. Although the officer had not used that ground, the Tribunal permitted the Department to raise it and remanded for findings on whether depreciation had actually been allowed under qualifying rules. The High Court upheld the conditional application of paragraph 2. Three assessee appeals challenged the Tribunal's power to admit the ground and remand; two Revenue appeals challenged the separate answer concerning 'all depreciation actually allowed.'
Source: Part B State history, depreciation dispute, new ground and remand: SCR pp.464-466 / PDF pp.2-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court treated section 33(4)'s words 'pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit' as broad, while recognising that 'thereon' confines jurisdiction to the subject matter of the appeal. The subject matter was the proper written-down value of the assets, so the Department could support the first appellate result on the additional Part B States ground and the Tribunal could direct further factual inquiry. Rules 12 and 28 did not exhaust or control the statutory power; the 1946 Rules were procedural. The Tribunal could therefore ask whether qualifying Indore-rule depreciation had actually been allowed and, if so, direct its consideration. The Court did not decide an unrestricted power of enhancement. On the Revenue's separate appeals, it followed Nandlal Bhandari Mills and held the High Court's answer correct without reproducing the referenced case's reasons.
Source: Section 33(4), appeal subject matter and remand power: SCR pp.466-468 / PDF pp.4-6
03 · Judicial decision
The Court rejected the assessee's jurisdiction argument and dismissed Civil Appeals Nos. 411-413 of 1965 without costs. It also held the High Court's answer in the Revenue's Civil Appeals Nos. 414-415 of 1965 correct for the reasons in Nandlal Bhandari Mills and dismissed those appeals without costs.
Source: Separate dispositions of assessee and Revenue appeal groups: SCR p.468 / PDF p.6
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Mixed outcome. The Revenue prevailed on the Tribunal-power issue because the assessee's three appeals failed; the assessee retained the High Court's answer on the separate depreciation question because the Revenue's two appeals also failed. All five appeals were dismissed and no costs were ordered.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: before raising or resisting an additional Tribunal ground, define the appeal's subject matter precisely, explain how the ground supports or changes the challenged order, identify required fact-finding and ensure the affected party has a real opportunity to answer. Do not reduce Hukumchand Mills to an unlimited 'new grounds allowed' rule: the judgment ties power to the matter already in appeal and does not finally endorse enhancement. For current practice, independently verify section 254, current rules and later precedent.
Source: AKHB analysis based on subject-matter limits, procedural fairness and remand power
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-page SCR source file read. The editorial headnote on PDF p.1 was distinguished from the unnumbered judicial text on PDF pp.1-6; both appeal groups and their separate dispositions were reviewed.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and six-page count match catalogue asset 1967_1_463_468; every page was read.
- The source verifies Civil Appeals Nos. 411-415 of 1965, decision date 22 September 1966 and the three-member bench.
- The wider section 33(4) discussion still recognises that 'thereon' confines the Tribunal to the appeal's subject matter and notes only a possible exclusion of enhancement power.
- The two Revenue appeals were separately dismissed by reference to Commissioner of Income-tax v. Nandlal Bhandari Mills Ltd.; this record does not reproduce or independently re-decide that authority's reasons.
- No title, citation or party match for this judgment was found in the existing published case collection or reviewed archive; later notes merely cite Hukumchand Mills.
Statutory scope
This decision construes section 33(4) of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, historical Part B State transition rules and the 1946 Tribunal Rules. Current section 254 practice and later procedural doctrine have not been checked.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Later judicial treatment, current Tribunal procedure and the present statutory analogue 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.