HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Calcutta v. National Taj Traders
Civil Appeal Nos. 171-172 of 1973
[1980] 2 SCR 268 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 33B
Holding and result. The limitation governed the Commissioner’s initial suo motu order, not a fresh order made under the Tribunal’s appellate direction. The Tribunal could vacate the ex parte revision and remand for a hearing.
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench; judgment delivered by V. D. Tulzapurkar, J. · V. D. Tulzapurkar, J. · E. S. Venkataramiah, J.
Assessment years: 1957-58, 1958-59
01 · Facts of the case
The Commissioner revised two assessments ex parte on the morning fixed by a notice served only three days earlier. The Tribunal found denial of opportunity and remanded. The High Court accepted cancellation but held that the two-year limit prevented a fresh Commissioner order.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Reading section 33B as a whole, the Court distinguished the limitation on the Commissioner’s original suo motu jurisdiction from the Tribunal’s broad appellate power to pass such orders as it thought fit on the appeal. A literal bar on a directed rehearing would produce anomalies and frustrate that appellate power.
Source: Primary judgment: reasoning
03 · Judicial decision
The Tribunal validly set aside the procedurally defective revision and directed the Commissioner to decide afresh after due opportunity; the two-year bar did not apply to the order made pursuant to that direction.
Source: Primary judgment: holdings
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
Revenue appeals allowed; no order as to costs.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: separate expiry of original revision jurisdiction from implementation of an appellate remand, and confirm the exact statute and later treatment before invoking this historical machinery ruling.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 16-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 16-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.