HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Smt. Anusuya Devi
Civil Appeal No. 2457 of 1966
[1968] 2 SCR 466 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 66(1), 66(2) and 66(4) · High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Ordinance, 1946: section 6
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: 1945-46
01 · Facts of the case
After Amritlal Ojha died on 18 October 1944, his estate was assessed for 1945-46. In January 1946 his widow Anusuya Devi encashed 584 high-denomination notes worth Rs.5,84,000. The explanation before the Income-tax Officer was that her husband had made gifts over many years and that the cash was found after his death. The officer treated the amount as the deceased's undisclosed income for accounting year 1944-45; the first appeal and Tribunal failed. Only in her section 66(1) application did Anusuya Devi assert that 494 notes came from a September 1945 bank withdrawal by her eldest son. The High Court compelled a reference asking whether the Tribunal had ignored that bank-withdrawal evidence and answered for the assessee (SCR pp.468-471; PDF pp.3-6).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The bank-withdrawal assertion was not before any fact-finding authority and did not appear even in Anusuya Devi's Tribunal affidavit. The Tribunal could not be faulted for ignoring evidence it had never received. A High Court may require a section 66(2) reference only on a legal question that was put to the Tribunal and arose from its order. Even after directing a reference, it remains free - and obliged - to test whether the question is legal, material, non-academic and actually arises from that order. Reframing can remove obscurity or identify the real issue, but cannot reopen a closed factual inquiry; a section 66(4) supplementary statement is confined to material already on record relevant to a question arising from the Tribunal's order. The unpreserved natural-justice complaint likewise could not invalidate the Tribunal's conclusion (SCR pp.471-474; PDF pp.6-9). The requested alternative question about whether all Rs.5,84,000 belonged to accounting year 1944-45 was not argued before the Tribunal; any High Court refusal to require it had become final without an assessee appeal (SCR pp.473-475; PDF pp.8-10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Supreme Court allowed Revenue's appeal, set aside the High Court's order and answered the referred question in the negative. Because of the missing departmental records and the Court's concern about their custody, it made no order as to costs in either court (SCR p.475; PDF p.10).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax on the procedural reference issue. The later factual explanation could not be used to impeach the Tribunal through section 66, and the High Court's affirmative answer was reversed (SCR pp.471-475; PDF pp.6-10).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: a tax reference must be built from the Tribunal record. Put each material fact, evidentiary objection and natural-justice complaint before the Tribunal, and frame the legal question in the section 66 application; later reframing cannot cure an omitted factual case. Preserve the assessment and appellate record with a reliable index and custody trail because a missing record can compromise both merits review and institutional credibility (based on SCR pp.471-475; PDF pp.6-10).
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 1968_2_466_475; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 2457 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 addresses the advisory reference jurisdiction under section 66 of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and evidence arising from the 1946 demonetisation ordinance. It does not state the modern appellate or cash-credit procedure. 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.