HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
State of Assam & Another v. Deva Prasad Barua & Another
Civil Appeals Nos. 808 and 809 of 1967
[1969] 1 SCR 698 ·
Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939: sections 19(1), 19(3), 20(1), 30 and 33
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by A. N. Grover, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1955-56, 1957-58
01 · Facts of the case
After general notices under section 19(1), the respondents filed delayed voluntary agricultural-income returns. The officer assessed them under section 20(1). The High Court treated the income as escaped and held the assessments barred by section 30's three-year period, also questioning service of individual notices (SCR pp.698-701; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 19(3) expressly permitted a person who missed the stated period to furnish a return at any time before assessment and deemed that return timely. Following Ranchhoddas Karsondas and Raman Chettiar on the parallel 1922 Act provisions, the Court held that the officer had to act on the voluntary return and could not ignore it in favour of escaped-income machinery. The words 'at any time' were not confined to the assessment year (SCR pp.701-703; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held section 30 inapplicable, allowed the State's appeals, dismissed the writ petitions and awarded one set of costs (SCR p.703; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue: the ordinary assessments based on the voluntary returns survived; this was not a ruling that escaped-income limitation could be ignored (SCR pp.701-703; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify the procedural source of jurisdiction before applying reassessment limitation. A valid voluntary return pending before the officer may keep the matter in ordinary assessment rather than escaped-income procedure, but present statutes and filing cut-offs require separate verification (based on SCR pp.701-703; PDF pp.4-6).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and six-page count match catalogue asset 1969_1_698_703; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated appeals, bench, statutory issue and operative dismissal of the writ petitions.
- No exact source-hash, asset-ID, SCR-citation, docket or same-judgment match was found in the published corpus or reviewed archive.
Statutory scope
The ruling construes the Assam Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1939 and relies on analogous provisions of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; it is not current-law clearance.
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.