Writ of prohibition and limitation plea: assessing officer retained jurisdiction to examine the issue after remand.

A writ of prohibition was refused because the Income-tax Officer still had jurisdiction to examine the assessee's limitation plea after remand. The Tribunal had not decided limitation on merits; it only permitted the issue of limitation and jurisdiction to be raised before the assessing officer. The corrigendum made only a technical correction and did not change the substantive directions. Reading the order as a whole, the isolated use of the word "allowed" in relation to the cross-objection did not deprive the officer of authority. The availability of statutory remedies also weighed against writ interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to restrain the Income-tax Officer from proceeding with the assessment on the ground that the assessment was barred by limitation and that the Tribunal's order deprived the officer of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Tribunal had not decided the limitation question on merits. Its order only permitted the assessee to raise the issue of limitation and jurisdiction before the Income-tax Officer while remanding the matter for further consideration. The subsequent corrigendum merely corrected a technical expression in the operative portion and did not alter the substantive directions. An order must be read as a whole, and the mere use of the word "allowed" in relation to the cross-objection could not override the clear finding that the limitation issue remained open. The Income-tax Officer retained jurisdiction to examine that issue, and the availability of further statutory remedies also weighed against interference in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ of prohibition was not warranted, as there was no lack of jurisdiction in the Income-tax Officer to consider the limitation plea.

---