HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigah
Civil Appeals Nos. 2552-2556 of 1969
[1977] 1 SCR 146 ·
Wealth-tax Act, 1957: section 2(e)(i) · Constitution of India: Lists I and II tax entries · Hyderabad/Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act: section 50
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
5-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by M. H. Beg, J. · A. N. Ray, C.J. · M. H. Beg, J. · R. S. Sarkaria, J. · P. N. Shinghal, J. · Jaswant Singh, J.
Assessment years: Connected wealth-tax assessments
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee claimed Hyderabad-area lands, including about 108 vacant Begumpet acres within municipal limits, were agricultural and excluded from wealth-tax assets. The land was capable of cultivation and revenue-classified as agricultural but had not been tilled and was found not intended for agriculture (SCR pp.146-153; PDF pp.1-8).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Mere theoretical capability would erase the statutory boundary. Actual or ordinary agricultural use, preparation, setting apart, condition and demonstrated intention were relevant. Revenue classification was good prima facie but rebuttable evidence; potential, size, wells and lack of inconsistent use were not conclusive (SCR pp.148-155; PDF pp.3-10).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court allowed Revenue's appeals, set aside the High Court judgment and remanded for fresh evidence and application of the correct test, with each side bearing its own costs (SCR pp.155-156; PDF pp.10-11).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue succeeded on the legal standard only; the Court did not finally hold the lands taxable or non-agricultural (SCR pp.155-156; PDF pp.10-11).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: classify land from objective use, preparation and appropriation plus credible intention. Treat revenue entries as rebuttable evidence and preserve the remand qualification (based on SCR pp.153-156; PDF pp.8-11).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 11-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 11-page count match catalogue asset 1977_1_146_156; every page was read and visually inspected.
- The source verifies the stated case identity, bench, statutory issue and operative order.
- 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 case concerns a former wealth-tax exclusion and historical land-revenue evidence; current wealth and land-classification law were not checked.
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.