HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa v. Manager, Court of Wards Estate, Bettiah
Civil Appeal No. 1172 of 1965
[1967] 2 SCR 748 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 41(1), 66(1), 66-A(2) · Income-tax Act, 1961: section 261 mentioned as corresponding appeal provision · Constitution: Articles 289 and 296 (High Court context) · Bengal Court of Wards Act, 1879: section 13
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · M. Hidayatullah, J. · J. M. Shelat, J. · G. K. Mitter, J.
Assessment years: 1956-57
01 · Facts of the case
After Maharani Janki Kuer died on 27 November 1954, the Bettiah Estate remained under Court of Wards management while succession was disputed. A claimant sued as alleged nearest heir; Bihar asserted that the property had vested in it by escheat. The officer assessed the Manager for AY 1956-57 and applied the maximum rate. The High Court answered the assessment question for the assessee and left the rate question unanswered. By the Supreme Court hearing the title suit had reportedly been dismissed, but an appeal remained pending.
Source: SCR pp. 748-750 / PDF pp. 1-3
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court could not conclude from the then available facts that escheat had occurred. It stated that an established escheat to the State would exclude the income-tax assessment, but ownership remained unresolved while the title appeal was pending. The proper course was to await that litigation and then finalise the tax-reference proceedings, with a supplementary statement of case if the High Court considered it necessary. The statutory section 41(1) here is the 1922 representative-assessment provision, not the 1961 remission provision.
Source: SCR pp. 749-750 / PDF pp. 2-3
03 · Judicial decision
The Patna High Court judgment was set aside. Proceedings were to be finalised after disposal of the title litigation; the High Court could request a supplementary case statement. Escheat was expressly left open. Costs were to follow the ultimate High Court result: Revenue would pay if escheat was found, and the Commissioner would receive costs if there was no escheat.
Source: SCR p. 750 / PDF p. 3
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue obtained procedural relief against the High Court judgment. Neither party secured a final merits ruling on ownership, substantive income-tax liability or the maximum rate. The conditional costs order is not a present award of costs to either side.
Source: SCR p. 750 / PDF p. 3
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: distinguish a contested claim of State ownership from established title. Where taxability depends on pending title litigation, preserve the court’s procedural directions and obtain the eventual title decision and supplementary reference record before advising a final tax result. This 1967 order is not evidence of present ownership of the Bettiah Estate, and it supplies no automatic suspension rule for unrelated assessments.
Source: SCR pp. 749-750 / PDF pp. 2-3
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Three-page SCR scan. Judicial body begins on PDF p. 1 / SCR p. 748 and ends with conditional costs on PDF p. 3 / SCR p. 750. Unnumbered judicial text.
- Complete source judicial text read; exact PDF bytes match consolidated source-index SHA-256. The public eSCR mirror is not a certified court copy.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory text and relevant assessment year control. No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or current-law certification.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent judicial treatment and present-law applicability remain unverified. No current-law or citator clearance is represented.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
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.