HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Income-tax Officer, Lucknow v. M/s S. B. Singhar Singh & Sons & Another
Civil Appeal No. 1539 of 1971
[1977] 1 SCR 214 ·
Constitution of India: Article 226 · Income-tax Act, 1922: sections 35 and 66 · Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940: section 6
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by R. S. Sarkaria, J. · H. R. Khanna, J. · R. S. Sarkaria, J. · Jaswant Singh, J.
Assessment years: Chargeable accounting periods ending 31 March 1945 and 31 March 1946
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee sought adjustment of standard profits for capital variation but supplied no complete computation. Years after the Tribunal disposed of the appeals, it alleged that the ground had been argued and left undecided, then obtained a High Court mandamus (SCR pp.214-218; PDF pp.1-5).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The contemporaneous omissions, delay and absence of counsel confirmation strongly indicated that the ground had not been pressed. Whether omission resulted from abandonment or a rectifiable Tribunal lapse belonged to the statutory authorities; extraordinary jurisdiction was not a substitute on disputed facts (SCR pp.218-220; PDF pp.5-7).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court allowed Revenue's appeal, dismissed the writ petition and awarded costs, without deciding the Tribunal's review power (SCR p.220; PDF p.7).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue on writ maintainability and discretion; the underlying standard-profit adjustment was not adjudicated (SCR pp.219-220; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: preserve proof that every appellate ground was actually argued and use timely statutory rectification or reference remedies. This judgment does not make every tax writ unavailable and does not resolve current procedural limits (based on SCR pp.219-220; PDF pp.6-7).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 7-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 7-page count match catalogue asset 1977_1_214_220; 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 decision concerns repealed excess-profits-tax and 1922 Act procedures; it is not current-law clearance.
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.