9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (11) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and by order dated March 20, 1951, the assessment was further reduced to ₹ 4,29,325. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened under section 34 and by order dated January 29, 1952, the income of the family was computed at the figure of ₹ 4,76,309. It appears that, subsequent to this, by reason of the assessment of certain firms, from which the family derived certain share income, its income was still further reduced by a sum of ₹ 55,116. This necessitated the rectification of the order dated January 29, 1952. By order dated November 18, 1955, the Income-tax Officer, instead of rectifying the order dated January 29, 1952, erroneously rectified the order determining the income of the family consequent upon the order of the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, it is well settled by decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court, that a petitioner has to make out a case, not only of an error of law having been committed by the subordinate authority or officer, however grave the error might be, or of want of jurisdiction, even though there may be total absence of jurisdiction, but he has, in addition, to show that manifest injustice has been done to him and injustice will be perpetrated if relief is not granted in the petition. I am of the view that on the facts stated above no injustice has been done to the petitioner and this petition must be dismissed on this ground alone. There is yet another hurdle in the petitioner's way. There is the existence of an alternative remedy wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct at least such an error as occurred in this case, by reason of the fact that proceedings before an Income-tax Officer are judicial proceedings and partake of all the incidents of such proceedings: vide Suraj Mall Mohta v. A.V. Visvanath Sastri [1954] 26 I.T.R. 1, 13; [1955] 1 S.C.R. 448. The possession of an inherent power of correction of an inadvertent error is one of the incidents of such proceedings. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was held to possess such power in Shri Bhagwan Radha Kishen v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1952] 22 I.T.R. 104, 108. It follows that the rectification of the mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer could properly be made by him by the impugned ORDER. The writ petition has no force and it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
