HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Sundaram & Company (P.) Ltd., Madurai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras
Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 1966
[1967] 3 SCR 798 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 23A, 34(1)(b) and 66 · Finance Act, 1956: section 2 and First Schedule, Part II, Paragraph D
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J.
Assessment years: 1956-57
01 · Facts of the case
For 1946-47 to 1951-52, section 23A orders deemed Rs. 3,54,716 distributed by Sundaram & Company; in July 1955 the company resolved to distribute that amount and credited shareholders. For assessment year 1956-57 the Income-tax Officer assessed total income of Rs. 5,69,396 and granted a super-tax rebate under the Finance Act, 1956. Believing 'excessive relief' had been granted, he issued a section 34(1)(b) notice on 21 January 1959 and withdrew Rs. 80,978 of rebate. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner limited the relevant distribution to Rs. 77,600. The Tribunal found none of section 34(1)(b)'s situations applicable but maintained that limited computation. On reference, the Madras High Court rejected excessive relief yet held that the assessee had been assessed at too low a rate (SCR pp.799-802; PDF pp.2-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court reframed the defective third reference question to ask whether the Income-tax Officer was competent to initiate reassessment for the excessive rebate. It accepted that, under section 34(1)(b), 'rate' was not confined to a numerical fraction of total income: it could mean a prescribed standard or measure, so failure to apply the Finance Act's rebate reduction could amount to assessment at too low a rate (SCR pp.802-806; PDF pp.5-9). But validity of initiation remained a separate issue. Sundaram had challenged the proceeding itself, and the notice reportedly invoked excessive relief rather than too-low-rate assessment. The High Court was obliged to decide that aspect even if it had not been specifically argued before the Tribunal. Because the notice was not in the Supreme Court paper book, the Court could not answer the question itself (SCR pp.806-807; PDF pp.9-10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court remanded the matter to the Madras High Court to obtain a supplementary statement if necessary and determine whether the section 34(1)(b) proceeding was validly initiated on the notice actually issued. Costs in the Supreme Court were made costs in the High Court (SCR p.807; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Mixed and procedural. The Revenue prevailed on the proposition that the rebate-reduction measure could be a 'rate', but Sundaram secured a remand on jurisdictional notice validity. The reassessment's final validity was left for the High Court (SCR pp.806-807; PDF pp.9-10).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: in a reassessment dispute, separate the substantive proposition said to justify adjustment from the jurisdictional ground communicated in the notice. A correct merits theory does not answer whether proceedings were validly initiated on the notice actually served. Preserve the complete notice and reference record before advising on outcome, and do not treat this historical remand as a present-law reassessment rule (based on SCR pp.802, 806-807; PDF pp.5, 9-10).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 10-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 10-page count match catalogue asset 1967_3_798_807; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 2453 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 case concerns former section 34(1)(b), section 23A deemed dividends and the 1956 super-tax rebate schedule under the repealed 1922 Act. It does not state the notice, jurisdiction or rate rules under a later enactment. 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.