HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Income-tax Officer, Agra v. Radha Krishan
Civil Appeal No. 1413 of 1966
[1967] 3 SCR 821 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 23(5)(a), 26A and 44 · Constitution of India: Article 226
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: 1944-45, 1945-46, 1946-47, 1947-48
01 · Facts of the case
Jawahar Tent Factory, Agra, was a registered four-partner firm. Jawahar Lal, representing his HUF, held an eight-annas share; Shiam Lal, Radha Raman and Radha Krishan held two annas and eight pies each. For assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48, Jawahar Lal's share of firm income was included with the HUF's other income and tax was assessed on that total. After Jawahar Lal defaulted, the Income-tax Officer attributed Rs. 79,296.25 of unpaid tax to his firm share and served demand notices on former partner Radha Krishan on 3 October 1962. A single judge and Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court granted Article 226 relief against those notices (SCR pp.822-823; PDF pp.2-3).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Under former section 23(5), a firm was a unit for computing income, but a registered firm's tax was collected through individual assessments of the partners: each share was added to that partner's other income, and the applicable rate depended on that partner's total income. A firm's contractual obligations may be joint and several, but income-tax liability is statutory and cannot be extended beyond the enactment by partnership-law implication (SCR pp.823-825; PDF pp.3-5). Section 44 dealt with joint and several assessment and tax on the income of a discontinued firm or dissolved association. It did not make Radha Krishan liable for tax individually assessed against Jawahar Lal under section 23(5)(a). The Court distinguished Angidi Chettiar, Amritlal Bhogilal and Shivram Poddar because their observations did not convert separate partner assessments into an aggregate joint liability (SCR pp.825-827; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court rejected the Income-tax Officer's asserted recovery power and dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1413 of 1966 with costs (SCR p.827; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Radha Krishan. The Revenue's attempt to recover Jawahar Lal's individually assessed tax from another former partner failed; the Court did not redetermine Jawahar Lal's own liability (SCR pp.825-827; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: when recovery is pursued against a person other than the named assessee, map separately the entity whose income was computed, the person against whom tax was assessed, and the statutory recovery provision said to extend liability. Do not infer tax liability solely from general partnership principles. Radha Krishan is a construction of the former 1922 Act scheme, so any present dispute requires fresh examination of the operative assessment and recovery provisions (based on SCR pp.823-827; PDF pp.3-7).
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_821_827; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 1413 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 registered-firm assessment and recovery under the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 for assessment years 1944-45 to 1947-48. It does not establish partner-liability or recovery 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.