HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Esthuri Aswathiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore
Civil Appeal No. 631 of 1966
[1967] 3 SCR 681 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(11), 34, 66(2) and 66(5) · Mysore Income-tax Act, 1923
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · S. M. Sikri, J. · V. Ramaswami, J.
Assessment years: 1950-51
01 · Facts of the case
Esthuri Aswathiah, a Mysore trader in groundnuts and other commodities, entered an opening cash balance of Rs.1,87,000 in his books. The Income-tax Officer accepted Rs.50,000 as prior cash and treated Rs.1,37,000 as income from undisclosed sources for assessment year 1950-51 after the earlier assessment-year treatment was set aside. The assessee relied on partition receipts, bank balances and withdrawals, jaggery-trade profits and agricultural income. The Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs.50,000, partly recording that counsel said the assessee was prepared to be assessed on that amount. On reference, the Mysore High Court held that the Tribunal's conclusion rested on no evidence (SCR pp.681-684; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court characterised the Tribunal's appellate function as judicial. It had to decide all factual and legal issues by evaluating the material, could use probabilities and presumptions where direct proof was unavailable, but could not decide by conjecture, surmise or speculation. Its unexplained Rs.50,000 estimate, substantially resting on counsel's offer and unsupported by reasons, was unsustainable; the Court also accepted that the assessee's evidence had not been properly considered (SCR pp.684-685; PDF pp.4-5). Under section 66(5), a High Court reference did not finally dispose of the pending appeal. Where the High Court found the Tribunal order vitiated by no evidence, speculation or unfair procedure, the Tribunal had to hear the parties and determine the merits conformably with that judgment. The High Court's answer therefore did not revive the first appellate addition automatically (SCR pp.685-686; PDF pp.5-6).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
Subject to an express direction that the Tribunal hear the assessee and Commissioner and dispose of the case on the evidence and according to law, the Supreme Court dismissed the assessee's appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the Commissioner's costs (SCR p.686; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Formally in favour of Revenue on the appeal and costs, but with material procedural relief to the assessee: the Tribunal had to rehear the merits, and neither its arbitrary Rs.50,000 estimate nor an automatic Rs.1,37,000 restoration could stand as the final result (SCR pp.685-686; PDF pp.5-6).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: a cash-credit determination should map every claimed source to contemporaneous evidence and explain why each item is accepted, rejected or probabilistically weighed. A concession or round-number estimate cannot replace reasons. When reading a tax reference disposition, also distinguish the High Court's advisory answer from the Tribunal's still-required conforming order and do not label a formal dismissal as a final merits victory where rehearing remains (based on SCR pp.684-686; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-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 6-page count match catalogue asset 1967_3_681_686; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 631 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 judgment concerns cash-credit assessment, reassessment and reference procedure under the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 against a Mysore State-tax background. It does not determine modern unexplained-credit provisions, reopening procedure or appellate practice under the Income-tax Act, 1961. No current-law or 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.