HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-II, Calcutta v. M/s Electro House
Civil Appeals Nos. 1168-1171 of 1971 and 2376-2379 of 1968
[1972] 1 SCR 589 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 26A, 33B and 66
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · K. S. Hegde, J. · A. N. Grover, J.
Assessment years: 1959-60, 1960-61
01 · Facts of the case
The Income-tax Officer registered an alleged partnership for AY 1959-60 and renewed it for AY 1960-61. Treating those orders as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue, the Commissioner issued a show-cause communication and commenced revision under section 33B. The High Court held the notice invalid and, on that basis, held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction, without answering two other referred questions.
Source: SCR pp. 589-592 / PDF pp. 1-4
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Unlike section 34, section 33B did not prescribe service of a notice as a condition precedent. It required the Commissioner to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing before reaching the decision and permitted necessary enquiry. Those requirements belonged to natural justice: breach could affect the legality of the eventual order, but not the initial assumption of jurisdiction. The Court expressly declined to define the full content of the enquiry or decide whether another natural-justice breach occurred.
Source: SCR pp. 592-593 / PDF pp. 4-5
03 · Judicial decision
The special-leave appeals were allowed. The High Court’s answer was discharged and replaced with an answer that the notice did not contravene section 33B and the Commissioner validly exercised jurisdiction. The matter returned to the High Court for the unanswered questions. The parallel certificate appeals were dismissed as not maintainable, without costs.
Source: SCR p. 593 / PDF p. 5
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue succeeded only on the threshold jurisdiction/notice issue. The substantive registration dispute and remaining questions were not finally decided by the Supreme Court.
Source: SCR pp. 592-593 / PDF pp. 4-5
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: identify separately the statutory trigger for jurisdiction, any prescribed notice, and the content/timing of the opportunity to be heard. A defect that is not jurisdictional can still invalidate the final order for breach of natural justice. Do not present this remand as a merits finding on partnership genuineness.
Source: AKHB analysis based on SCR pp. 592-593 / PDF pp. 4-5
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 5-page SCR report read, separating the editorial headnote from the judicial text.
- Full source read; exact original bytes match the catalogue SHA-256. Judicial text is unnumbered, so SCR and PDF page pinpoints are used.
Statutory scope
The ruling concerns section 33B of the repealed 1922 Act. It does not dispense with any express notice requirement in a different statute or with the obligation to provide a fair hearing before decision.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Comprehensive subsequent treatment has not been verified; no current 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.