HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Sashi Prasad Barooah v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Shillong, Assam and Others
Civil Appeals Nos. 245-251 of 1972
[1977] 2 SCR 645 ·
Assam Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1939: sections 2(m), 3, 6, 19, 20, 30 and 50 · Assam Agricultural Income-tax Rules, 1939: rule 23 · Income-tax Act, 1961: section 171(1) discussed
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench; unanimous judgment delivered by H. R. Khanna, J. · H. R. Khanna, J. · R. S. Sarkaria, J.
Assessment years: 1946-47 to 1951-52, 1955-56
01 · Facts of the case
The appellant karta asserted that a Dayabhaga HUF owning tea estates had partitioned in 1945 and that certain estates became his individual property. Seven HUF assessments followed after returns were not furnished; writ challenges attacked both the assessments and rule 23 (SCR pp.645-648; PDF pp.1-4).
Source: Primary judgment: facts
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Rule 23 clearly deemed a previously assessed HUF to continue until an apportionment order, and none existed. The charging liability arose under section 3; identifying the assessable person was an implementation detail within section 50(1), not an excess of rule-making power. Section 171(1) supplied a comparable legislative pattern (SCR pp.648-653; PDF pp.4-9).
Source: Primary judgment: discussion
03 · Judicial decision
The Court upheld rule 23 and the HUF assessments, dismissing all seven appeals with one set of costs (SCR p.653; PDF p.9).
Source: Primary judgment: decision
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of Revenue; the Court did not decide whether the asserted partition had factually occurred (SCR pp.651-653; PDF pp.7-9).
Source: Primary judgment: outcome
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: where a statute makes an apportionment order the gateway out of continuing HUF assessment, a private partition assertion alone may not change the assessable unit. Current text and procedure must be checked separately (based on SCR pp.651-653; PDF pp.7-9).
Source: Primary judgment: review point
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Full 9-page SCR source asset read in page-preserving text and visually inspected; adjacent-report boundaries were checked.
- Exact source bytes, SHA-256 and 9-page count match catalogue asset 1977_2_645_653; 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 ruling applies historical Assam agricultural-income-tax law; it does not state current HUF assessment procedure.
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.