HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram
Civil Appeal No. 4262 of 2007
[2007] 9 SCR 949 ·
260A · 158BD (contextual reference)
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
Two-judge bench · S.B. Sinha, J. · Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
01 · Facts of the case
The assessee’s October 1998 registered land purchase stated consideration of Rs 4.10 lakh. Search material included loose notings, and the seller gave conflicting statements about a higher price. The AO adopted a higher consideration and made an undisclosed-income addition. CIT(A) and the Tribunal deleted it after considering contradictions, discrepancies in the areas mentioned in the papers and the local registration-value evidence (paragraph 3).
Revenue’s High Court appeal challenged those evidentiary conclusions. The High Court found no substantial question of law. In the Supreme Court, Revenue also objected that the High Court had extensively copied the lower authorities’ reasoning without independent attribution, and sought reconsideration (paragraphs 4–5).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The Court accepted that borrowed passages should be acknowledged, while recognising that quoting a specialised authority can aid brevity and precision. The drafting criticism did not establish a substantive error requiring a remand (paragraph 6).
On this record, the actual price, effect of the seller’s contradictory accounts and reliability of the loose sheets were factual questions. The proposed questions did not amount to substantial questions of law. The Court therefore found no infirmity in the High Court’s refusal to reopen the factual evaluation. It did not declare loose sheets or a retracted statement incapable of evidentiary value in every case (paragraphs 5–6).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
03 · Judicial decision
Revenue’s appeal was dismissed. The deletion accepted by the appellate authorities remained undisturbed; no fresh valuation or remand was ordered. The closing paragraph contains no express costs direction (paragraph 6).
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Assessee
Revenue appeal dismissed; no remand
Final refusal to interfere with the fact-based deletion on the questions presented
No universal exclusion of loose-sheet evidence, no automatic acceptance of every retraction, and no rule that registration guidance alone conclusively fixes actual consideration.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Test the evidence as a whole: whether the notings identify the same property and area, whether witness versions are consistent, and whether objective corroboration supports the asserted price. The result rests on the record and the limited appellate question, not on a shortcut that all informal records must be ignored. A claim of perversity in another case must identify the actual legal or evidentiary defect.
For citation, preserve the distinction between the Court’s comment on attribution and its refusal to disturb the result. Do not reconstruct an on-money amount from this report’s inconsistent figures or use it as a present property-valuation or anti-abuse rule.
Source: See the proposition-specific paragraph and PDF-page references below.
Proposition-specific source paragraphs and PDF pages
- topic
- Identity and appeal
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 1; 2
- paragraphs
- Cover; jurisdiction; 1–2
- source role
- reported metadata and judicial text
- topic
- Evidence, findings and proposed legal questions
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 3; 4
- paragraphs
- 3–4
- source role
- judicial text
- topic
- Submissions, attribution comment and final dismissal
- source url
- Open cited source
- pdf pages
- 4; 5
- paragraphs
- 5–6
- source role
- judicial text
Judicial authorship and separate opinions
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.Act identified in the reviewed source
Income-tax Act, 1961Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Identified source rendition: 5 PDF pages; SHA-256 1835a3d7f0aca249d9e239419ac49a61a842d7fed2a91f4d00b74318e1651e8d. Original bytes preserved. Judicial paragraphs 1–6 on physical pages 2–5/SCR 950–953; earlier editorial material excluded. No adjacent judgment.
- Paragraph 3 gives Rs 34.35 lakh in one seller recital, Rs 4.85 lakh in a later statement and Rs 34.85 lakh as the AO’s conclusion, while the stated addition is Rs 3,75,005. The printed figures are not arithmetically harmonised or corrected.; The Tribunal’s treatment of the taxpayer’s tax deposit as not conclusive acquiescence is attributed procedural history, not a rule that tax payments never have evidentiary consequences.; The report gives a broken period, not an express assessment-year number; none is inferred.; The judgment-writing comment is not a separate sanction against the High Court or its judges.
- The narrative identifies the broken period 1 April 1998 to 8 December 1998, not a complete block period or an express assessment-year number.
Statutory scope
Current statutory equivalence and 2025 Act applicability have not been verified.
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 5 pages
SHA-256: 1835a3d7f0aca249d9e239419ac49a61a842d7fed2a91f4d00b74318e1651e8d
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.