HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta & Another v. Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury & Another
Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1966
[1967] 3 SCR 322 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 5(5), 5(7)(a), 33(2), 64(1), 64(2), 64(4) and 66
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by S. M. Sikri, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J. · V. Ramaswami, J.
Assessment years: 1947-48
01 · Facts of the case
For assessment year 1947-48, Income-tax Officer District I(2) assessed a Hindu undivided family's Rs.1,41,851 forest income from East Pakistan as non-agricultural. The first appellate authority held it exempt. By then the assessee had moved in 1954 from Beadon Row to Ballygunge Circular Road, within District VI. Acting on the Commissioner's direction, the District VI officer filed Revenue's Tribunal appeal. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's objection that only the original assessing officer could file. On reference, the Calcutta High Court inspected original records, found facts absent from the statement of case about supervisory Commissioners and lack of transfer, and held the appeal incompetent (SCR pp.323-325; PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The High Court exceeded section 66 jurisdiction by finding new facts outside the statement of case; it should have requested a supplementary statement if necessary. Ignoring those additions, section 33(2) made the Commissioner, not the Income-tax Officer, the person with the appeal right. A directed officer performed a ministerial filing function, but 'the Income-tax Officer' meant one having concern with the assessee or matter rather than any officer whatsoever (SCR pp.325-326; PDF pp.4-5). Because the assessee had changed residence, District VI had jurisdiction under section 64 by the time of filing and was concerned with the appeal. The original assessing officer could also remain concerned, but not exclusively; tax officers could have concurrent jurisdiction, and a transfer could remove the former officer's concern. The Court therefore accepted the District VI filing while rejecting the broader Punjab view that any officer could file (SCR pp.326-328; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court set aside the Calcutta High Court, answered affirmatively that the Tribunal appeal was filed by a proper person, and allowed Revenue's appeal with no order as to costs (SCR p.328; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue/the Department on the procedural question. District VI's officer could file the directed Tribunal appeal; the agricultural-income dispute itself remained for the appellate process and was not decided by this judgment (SCR pp.327-328; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: distinguish ownership of an appellate right from the official who performs its filing. Verify the authorizing order, the filing officer's statutory connection to the taxpayer or matter, any transfer order and the jurisdiction position on the filing date. In reference proceedings, keep factual findings within the stated case and seek a supplementary statement rather than supplementing the record judicially. Modern jurisdiction and electronic/faceless authorization require separate statutory and systems checks (based on SCR pp.325-328; PDF pp.4-7).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR report read and checked. The editorial headnote and adjacent-report boundary text were distinguished from the judicial opinion and operative order.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 7-page count match catalogue asset 1967_3_322_328; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1966, the stated bench, issues, reasoning and operative result.
- No published or archived standalone AKHB note with this source hash, case identity and operative decision was found.
Statutory scope
The ruling concerns departmental appeal authorization, territorial assessment jurisdiction and reference powers under the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It does not determine present authorization, jurisdiction, transfer, faceless proceedings, appellate filing or remand procedure under the Income-tax Act, 1961. No current-law or comprehensive later-treatment clearance was undertaken.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-11. Later judicial treatment and current statutory applicability 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.