HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Sahu Rajeshwar Nath v. Income-tax Officer
Civil Appeal No. 1768 of 1967
[1969] 1 SCR 999 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(2), 29 and 46(2) · Indian Partnership Act, 1932: section 25 · Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXI rule 50(2)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by V. Ramaswami, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · V. Ramaswami, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1945-46
01 · Facts of the case
Sahu Rajeshwar Nath held a 12/53 share in the unregistered Regal Dehydrating Company, Meerut. The firm was assessed on 9 December 1952 on Rs.64,622 for assessment year 1945-46. The appellant claimed that he had transferred his share on 15 January 1945, received neither assessment notice nor a section 29 demand, and first learnt of recovery in September 1958. His writ petition and Letters Patent appeal failed. Before the Supreme Court he abandoned the partnership-status challenge, accepted that the relevant accounting year ended in October 1944 and confined the case to whether a separate demand notice was required and whether the Collector could execute the firm's tax certificate against him (SCR pp.1000-1002; PDF pp.2-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Section 29's phrase 'other person liable to pay' meant a person made liable by the Income-tax Act itself; it did not extend to a partner whose joint and several liability arose under section 25 of the Partnership Act. A separate section 29 notice to the partner was therefore unnecessary before section 46(2) recovery (SCR pp.1002-1003; PDF pp.4-5). The section 46(2) proviso conferred the powers that a civil court had to recover a decree. Applied mutatis mutandis, Order XXI rule 50(2) permitted execution against a person claimed to be a partner where liability was not disputed. Because the appellant admitted his partnership during the relevant year and the firm's return also named him, the Collector could execute the certificate against him. The Court approved two Calcutta decisions and rejected contrary Mysore and Allahabad views (SCR pp.1003-1005; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held that no separate section 29 demand notice was required for this partner and that the Collector could lawfully recover the unregistered firm's tax arrears from him under section 46(2) using Order XXI rule 50(2). The appeal was dismissed with costs (SCR p.1005; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the Income-tax Officer/Revenue respondents. The appellant was denied mandamus and the recovery proceedings remained valid (SCR pp.1004-1005; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: before seeking recovery from a partner, separate the source of substantive liability from the statutory demand and execution machinery. Record whether partnership status for the liability period is admitted; a disputed identity can trigger different safeguards. Do not transpose this 1922 Act holding to present recovery law without checking the current statute, firm-registration regime and notice rules (based on SCR pp.1002-1005; PDF pp.4-7).
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 1969_1_999_1005; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 1768 of 1967, 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 decision applies the recovery machinery of the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 to an unregistered firm's 1945-46 liability, together with the Partnership Act and the then-applicable Civil Procedure Code execution rule. It does not establish the notice or partner-recovery position under later income-tax legislation. 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.