HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
R. K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel
Civil Appeal No. 544 of 1975
[1987] 3 SCR 42 ·
Income-tax Act, 1961: historical sections 147(b), 148 and 149 · Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 34 (distinguished)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2-judge bench · Ranganath Misra, J. · G. L. Oza, J.
Assessment years: 1965-66
01 · Facts of the case
For AY 1965-66 the Income-tax Officer issued the reassessment notice by registered post on 31 March 1970; the assessee received it on 3 April 1970. The Gujarat High Court quashed the notice as time-barred, relying on authority concerning section 34 of the 1922 Act. The Revenue appealed. The Supreme Court recorded that the respondent did not appear despite notice.
Source: SCR p. 43 / PDF p. 2
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court distinguished the statutory schemes. Under the 1922 Act, service within the prescribed period founded jurisdiction. Under the then 1961 Act, section 149 governed when the notice must be issued, while section 148 required service before the assessment order. Consequently, timely issue and service were separate requirements. On the admitted dates, issue on 31 March 1970 fell within the prescribed period, even though receipt occurred later.
Source: SCR pp. 44-45 / PDF pp. 3-4
03 · Judicial decision
The Revenue's appeal was allowed and the High Court order vacated. The Income-tax Officer was directed to proceed to complete the assessment after complying with the requirements of law. No costs were ordered because the respondent had not appeared.
Source: SCR p. 45 / PDF p. 4
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In favour of the Revenue on the limitation objection to the notice. The assessee did not lose a finally adjudicated merits dispute over escaped income: lawful completion of reassessment remained for the officer, and service before reassessment remained mandatory.
Source: SCR p. 45 / PDF p. 4
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
AKHB analysis: distinguish evidence of actual issuance from service and calculate the relevant deadline under the precise statutory version. Preserve postal or other authorised dispatch and service evidence. Do not substitute the date typed on a notice for proof of actual issue, or use this historical ruling to bypass modern statutory conditions.
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Four-page SCR scan; judicial text begins on PDF page 2 and ends on page 4. Historical provisions are reproduced within the judgment.
- Full judicial text and operative relief read. Original bytes match the SHA-256 in the supplied source reconciliation.
Statutory scope
Apply the historical statutory text governing the decision. Current statutory applicability and Income-tax Act, 2025 equivalence have not been verified.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-10. Full historical judgment checked. Comprehensive subsequent judicial 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.