1961 (11) TMI 74 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 35 for rectification of assessment order.
2. Limitation period for issuing notice under section 35.
3. Availability of alternative remedy through revision under section 33A(2) before approaching the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution arising from assessment proceedings of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1946-47. The income of the family underwent various assessments and rectifications over the years. The Income-tax Officer, in an attempt to rectify an error made in a previous order, issued a notice under section 35 proposing corrections to the income figure. The family objected to the notice on the grounds of jurisdiction and limitation, which were overruled by the Income-tax Officer, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

The High Court emphasized that for invoking writ jurisdiction, the petitioner must demonstrate not only errors of law or jurisdiction but also manifest injustice. In this case, the court found that no injustice had been done to the petitioner based on the facts presented. Additionally, the court highlighted the existence of an alternative remedy through revision under section 33A(2) before the Commissioner of Income-tax, which the petitioner had not utilized. Citing precedent, the court noted that failure to exhaust alternative remedies precludes direct recourse to the High Court under article 226.

Regarding the limitation period for issuing the notice under section 35, the court analyzed section 35(5) and noted that the starting point of limitation was linked to the final orders passed in the case of the firms from which the family derived share income. As those dates were not provided, the court concluded that the notice dated September 7, 1959, was not barred by limitation. Furthermore, the court recognized the inherent power of the Income-tax Officer to correct inadvertent errors in judicial proceedings, citing previous judgments to support the notion of possessing such corrective powers.

Ultimately, the court found that the rectification made by the Income-tax Officer was within the scope of his authority, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs, emphasizing that it lacked merit and did not warrant relief through the writ jurisdiction.