2000 (4) TMI 7 - HC - Income Tax

Writ - Rectification Of Mistakes - In my opinion, since the petitioners have alternative, effective and efficacious remedy provided under the statute itself, they are not entitled to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this court seeking a writ to cancel the orders made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the appeals filed by them against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Bangalore, dated December 27, 1996. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be rejected.

Issues Involved:
1. Mistakes apparent on the face of the record in the Tribunal's order.
2. Rejection of rectification petitions under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act.
3. Availability of alternative remedy under section 260A of the Income-tax Act.
4. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Mistakes Apparent on the Face of the Record in the Tribunal's Order:
The petitioners identified nearly seven mistakes in the Tribunal's common order dated December 31, 1998. These mistakes included:
- Incorrectly treating regular assessments for the assessment years 1992-93 and 1993-94 as assessments made under section 148 of the Act.
- Erroneously assuming that the reopening of assessments was applicable for all periods from 1989-90 to 1993-94.
- Overlooking the mandatory provisions of section 144 of the Act.
- Ignoring decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court while upholding ex parte assessments and levying interest.

2. Rejection of Rectification Petitions under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act:
The Tribunal rejected the rectification petitions filed by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were seeking a review of the order, which is impermissible under section 254(2) of the Act. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal's order was arbitrary and violated principles of natural justice, requiring it to be set aside and remitted back for reconsideration.

3. Availability of Alternative Remedy under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act:
The court noted that section 260A provides for an appeal to the High Court against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal if a substantial question of law is involved. The court emphasized that the petitioners have an equally effective and efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under section 260A. The court cited various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to support the principle that when a statute provides a complete machinery for obtaining relief, the statutory remedy must be exhausted before invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226.

4. Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court reiterated that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief available under statutory provisions. The court pointed out that it would not entertain a petition under Article 226 where the petitioner has an alternative remedy that is equally efficacious. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments to underline that the High Court does not act as a court of appeal to correct errors of fact and does not bypass the statutory machinery provided for obtaining relief.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners must resort to the alternative remedy provided under section 260A of the Income-tax Act. The court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, emphasizing the availability of an adequate statutory remedy. The petitions were rejected, and liberty was reserved for the petitioners to question the Tribunal's orders before an appropriate forum. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

← Previous Next →