HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Champa Kumari Singhi and Others v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal and Others
Civil Appeals Nos. 564 to 571 of 1968
[1970] 3 SCR 467 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 29, 45, 46 and 47 · Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913
Holding and result. By majority, granting instalments brought the case within the section 46(7) proviso, so the recovery year ran from the last instalment date despite earlier acceleration; the recovery certificates were timely and the substantive assessee appeals were dismissed.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Six-judge bench; majority judgment delivered by M. Hidayatullah, C.J.; K. S. Hegde, J. dissented. · M. Hidayatullah, C.J. · J. C. Shah, J. · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J. · A. N. Ray, J. · I. D. Dua, J.
01 · Facts of the case
Following voluntary disclosure, a company and shareholders agreed to joint and several tax liability payable by instalments through 31 March 1957, with the whole balance accelerated on a missed instalment. Assessment orders incorporated the agreement and demands issued in September 1952. After default, recovery certificates were issued on 14 March 1956; the assessees said the one-year period had expired.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The majority treated the incorporated instalment arrangement as part of the assessment orders. Although default accelerated the whole balance, clause (iv) of the section 46(7) proviso measured the recovery period from the last instalment date whenever instalments were granted, allowing Revenue to accept late payments without losing the statutory option. Hegde, J. dissented: default and when tax was due had to follow sections 45 and 46 rather than the agreement, making the 1956 certificates late.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The majority held the 1956 certificates within limitation under the instalment proviso; the dissent would have treated them as barred.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Civil Appeals Nos. 564, 566, 568 and 570 dismissed with costs; the other four appeals dismissed as infructuous without separate costs.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: for historical recovery limitation, map the demand, statutory default, instalment order, acceleration clause, last due date and governing proviso separately. Preserve the 5–1 split; do not convert the majority’s construction of this repealed text into a general rule for every settlement.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 14-page SCR report read in page-preserving text and every page image inspected, from the reported opening page through the operative disposition.
- Exact catalogue SHA-256 and 14-page count verified; every page was read and visually inspected.
Statutory scope
Historical statutory provisions are described as they appeared in the report. Verify the current enactment, amendments and later judicial treatment before reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-12. No comprehensive later-treatment or present-law clearance is represented. The note reports the historical statutory text and result in this primary report only.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from the identified primary report and has not been represented as independently human-reviewed.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, governing statutory version and subsequent judicial treatment before reliance. The AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court's holding, and no current-law clearance is claimed.