HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab v. Daulat Ram Khanna
Civil Appeal No. 580 of 1966
[1967] 3 SCR 298 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 34, 63 and 66(1) · Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order V rule 20(1)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J. · V. Ramaswami, J.
Assessment years: 1945-46
01 · Facts of the case
A section 34 notice for AY 1945-46 was issued to an HUF on 29 March 1954. Ordinary service was unsuccessful. The officer directed affixture at its address and registered-post dispatch. Affixture occurred on 31 March; postal receipt was on 5 April. After examining the process server, the officer held affixture proper. The High Court invalidated it because no copy had been affixed at the tax office.
Source: SCR pp. 298-299 / PDF pp. 1-2
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 63 incorporated summons-service procedure. Order V rule 20(1) provided both the specified dual-affixture method and a discretionary alternative manner. Under the latter, office affixture was not invariably required, but the chosen method still had to give notice to the person served. The Court rejected Jhabar Mal Chokhani’s contrary construction. It did not need to decide Revenue’s separate argument based on the 1959 amendment and later service.
Source: SCR pp. 300-301 / PDF pp. 3-4
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue’s appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside and the referred question of proper service within time answered affirmatively against the assessee. There was no order as to costs.
Source: SCR p. 301 / PDF p. 4
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on validity of the notice service in the circumstances proved. The decision was not a merits determination of the reassessed income.
Source: SCR pp. 299-301 / PDF pp. 2-4
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: retain the failed-service report, the authority’s substituted-service direction and proof of execution. Identify whether the prescribed dual-affixture route or a specifically ordered alternative was used. Do not rely on the judgment to cure absent procedural records or assume it resolves modern electronic-service requirements.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 299-301 / PDF pp. 2-4
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full four-page SCR report read, separating editorial headnote from judicial reasoning; no neighbouring case text used.
- Full source read; page pinpoints used because judgment paragraphs are unnumbered. Exact original bytes match the catalogue SHA-256.
- Public eSCR mirror, not a certified court copy.
Statutory scope
This decision applies the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to the stated historical assessment years. Current statutory applicability and any Income-tax Act, 1961 or 2025 crosswalk are not determined.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent treatment has not been verified; 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.