HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Mathew M. Thomas and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Civil Appeal No. 1566 of 1993
[1999] 1 SCR 651 ·
119 · 269C · 269D · 269G · 269H · 269I · 269RR · 269UD (legislative background)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · D.P. Wadhwa, J. · M. Srinivasan, J.
01 · Facts of the case
The appellants bought land and buildings in 1977 for Rs 2,45,000. The Inspector valued the property at Rs 3,24,000 and the DVO later at Rs 7,24,000. An acquisition order was made on 31 March 1981, but the Tribunal allowed the purchasers’ appeal and cancelled the proceedings. Revenue appealed under section 269H (physical page 3).
During that appeal, the legislative transition from Chapter XX-A to XX-C and Circular 455 introduced relief for the stated low-apparent-consideration acquisitions. The Kerala Full Bench held the circular unavailable because the competent authority had already passed its order. It returned the matter to the Division Bench without answering the broader question referred to it; the purchasers challenged that ruling (physical pages 4–5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The circular aimed at early finalisation of the older acquisition litigation. Its reference to initiation by section 269D notice did not confine relief to the original authority’s stage. Appeals were continuations of the same acquisition proceeding; until the statutory finality point was reached, the proceeding retained that character (paragraphs 7–8, physical page 6).
The Court agreed with the High Court authorities that applied this beneficial direction to pending appeals and with the duty of tax authorities to follow the applicable Board direction. It rejected the Kerala Full Bench’s narrow stage restriction. The issue was applicability of this circular within the historic scheme, not an unlimited Board power to override every Act provision (paragraphs 9–14, physical pages 6–8).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
The appeal was allowed without costs. Circular 455 was held applicable to all pending proceedings that had not attained finality within section 269I and its Explanation. The Court did not quantify a refund, independently determine the property’s fair market value or supply a later outcome of the remaining High Court proceeding (paragraph 14, physical page 8).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Purchaser appellants on circular applicability
Appeal allowed; pending appellate proceedings included; no costs
Final ruling on the historical circular’s procedural reach
Not a reopening of cases already final, a modern Rs 5 lakh property exemption, or a determination of all valuation/acquisition merits.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
For an old acquisition case, distinguish apparent consideration from departmental valuation and determine whether proceedings had actually attained statutory finality. An appellate stage was not a reason to deny this relief. Keep the two limbs of the quoted circular distinct: no fresh initiation for the stated ceiling and dropping of initiated proceedings for the stated lower amount. The present Rs 2,45,000 transaction did not require the Court to resolve treatment of a transaction exactly at Rs 5 lakh.
All amounts, procedural sections and dates belong to the historical Chapter XX-A transition. They are not current conveyancing thresholds. The report’s inconsistent circular dates should remain visible; the operative paragraph uses 16 May 1986, whereas the introduction and headnote use 16 September 1986. No unqualified date is imposed across those passages.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity, property consideration, differing valuations and procedural history
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 3
- paragraphs
- Unnumbered judicial text
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Quoted circular, distinct thresholds and limited issue
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 4; 5
- paragraphs
- Paragraphs 2–6
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Appeal as continuing proceeding and beneficial direction
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 6; 7
- paragraphs
- Paragraphs 7–11
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Finality condition, operative date and allowance
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 8
- paragraphs
- Paragraphs 12–14
- source role
- judicial text
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
M. Srinivasan, J.Act identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 8 PDF pages; SHA-256 d368535df57ad558ae26af21b09ece2b53fceac4c488729e35cea5e50c5196ae. Original bytes preserved. Complete judicial paragraphs 1–14, physical pages 3–8/SCR 653–658; historical circular quotation and attributed earlier decisions distinguished.
- Circular 455 is repeatedly dated 16 September 1986 in the report but dated 16 May 1986 in operative paragraph 14. Both original passages are preserved.; The quoted circular distinguishes apparent consideration of Rs 5 lakh or less for non-initiation from below Rs 5 lakh for dropping initiated proceedings. The note does not silently resolve the exact-threshold question.; The legislative overview on page 5 prints a Rs 25 lakh historical Chapter XX-A threshold. That amount is not adopted as a separately verified statutory threshold or used to reconstruct this acquisition.; The introduction says the appellants filed an appeal by order dated 31 October 1981; the context identifies that date with the Tribunal’s successful disposition, not a verified filing date.; The Court’s final order decides circular applicability. Earlier cases’ amounts and orders quoted in support are not the present property’s facts.
Statutory scope
No automatic mapping to the Income-tax Act, 2025 or present-law certification. Apply the statutory text for the relevant year.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Comprehensive subsequent judicial and statutory treatment has not been verified. Only the expressly identified bounded comparisons have been checked. No current-law or Income-tax Act, 2025 mapping is certified.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- reported judgment — PDF 8 pages
SHA-256: d368535df57ad558ae26af21b09ece2b53fceac4c488729e35cea5e50c5196ae
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.