9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (7) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Co " at premises No. 28, J. N. Mukherjee Road, Howrah. On or about March 3, 1961, the assessee submitted voluntarily returns of income for the assessment years 1953-54 to 1960-61 to the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Howrah. On March 18, 1961, the Income-tax Officer made assessment orders for the aforesaid assessment years under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). On February 25, 1963, respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the assessee under section 33B of the Act for cancelling the assessments and March 6, 1963, was fixed as the date of hearing. On the date of hearing no one attended on behalf of the assessee and an order was made by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding of the appeal. It is well-settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court for issue of a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ ; but, as observed by this court in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board Kairana, the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs and where such a remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion for the High Court to refuse to entertain a petition under article 226 unless there are good grounds therefor. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution. In our opinion the High Court would have been justified in the circumstances of this case in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant in limine. Turning to the merits of the case also we arc satisfied that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The High Court has found after examination of the evidence that an opportunity was given to the appellant to be heard before respondent No. 1 made the order under section 33B of the Act. The appellant had declared No. 28, J. N Mukherjee Road, Howrah, to be her address. She had admitted that she had received all notices of demand under section 29 of the Act at the same address. It appears that the order made under section 33B of the Act was served on the appellant at the same addr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dure, as amended by the Calcutta Amendment, were not strictly satisfied in this case and service of the notice on the appellant at the address by affixing was not a valid service. But it is necessary to point out that section 33B of the Act does not in express terms require a notice to be served as in the case of section 34 of the Act. Section 33B merely requires that an opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee and the stringent requirement of service of notice under section 34 cannot, therefore, be applied to a proceeding under section 33B of the Act. As we have already stated the High Court has found after an examination of the evidence of the case that the appellant was given an opportunity of being heard before respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
