HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar & Orissa, Patna v. Kirkend Coal Company
Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 1966
[1969] 3 SCR 983 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 2(2), 3, 23, 25, 26(1), 26(2), 28(1)(c), 44 and 66
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by J. C. Shah, J. · J. C. Shah, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1948-49
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1948-49 the Income-tax Officer added Rs.1,60,000 as undisclosed receipts and then imposed a Rs.60,000 penalty under section 28(1)(c). The firm carrying on the business in calendar year 1947 was dissolved when a partner died on 7 July 1951; a successor firm continued the same business from 8 July 1951, and from 28 April 1952 there was another change in constitution without discontinuance. The Tribunal rejected the firm's jurisdictional objection. On a section 66 reference, supplemented with findings about the successive constitutions, the Patna High Court held that penalty could be imposed only on the original firm and not the firm constituted in 1952 (SCR pp.984-985; PDF pp.2-3).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court held that section 44 was confined to discontinuance of the business, not dissolution while the business continued. Reconstitution was governed by section 26(1), and succession by section 26(2). Drawing on Shivram Poddar and related authority, it explained that the 1922 Act treated the firm as an assessment unit whose tax personality could survive reconstitution; penalty proceedings were part of assessment, and a firm was a person for section 28 (SCR pp.985-988; PDF pp.3-6). But neither the Tribunal nor the High Court had investigated whether sections 26 and 28 made the later partners or reconstituted firm liable for the earlier firm's default. A section 66 reference could answer only questions raised or argued before the Tribunal, not a new matter simply because broad wording might cover it (SCR p.988; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court held that section 44 had been wrongly treated as the source of power because there was no discontinuance of the business. It declined to decide the unraised alternative basis under sections 26 and 28 and dismissed Revenue's appeal, with no order as to costs (SCR p.988; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Kirkend Coal Company/respondent on the appeal, but only procedurally and within the section 66 reference record. The possible substantive liability of the reconstituted firm under sections 26 and 28 was expressly left undecided (SCR p.988; PDF p.6).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate three questions before analysing a historical firm penalty—whether the business stopped, whether only the firm's constitution or ownership changed, and which statutory provision was actually invoked and contested in the reference record. A court's rejection of the pleaded statutory route does not decide an unargued alternative route; a dismissal on that basis should not be presented as a substantive immunity from penalty (based on SCR pp.985-988; PDF pp.3-6).
Source: Primary judgment: reviewPoint
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 6-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 6-page count match catalogue asset 1969_3_983_988; every page was reviewed.
- The source verifies Civil Appeal No. 2456 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 decision construes the repealed Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 and the reference jurisdiction then exercised under section 66. It does not establish present penalty liability, present treatment of firm reconstitution or current appellate/reference procedure. No later-treatment or current-law 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.