Court dismisses writ petition challenging Income-tax Act notice & penalty enhancement, citing alternative remedies & parallel proceedings rule.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notice issued under sections 154/155 of the Income-tax Act and the rectification order enhancing the penalty amount for the assessment year 1964-65. The court found that the petitioner had alternative remedies available, including an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which had been pursued unsuccessfully. As parallel proceedings for the same cause of action were not permissible, and with subsequent events including rectification and appeal, the court concluded that no relief could be granted in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded as the petitioner was not represented.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the notice issued under section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Legality of the rectification order enhancing the penalty amount.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition due to availability of alternative remedy.
4. Parallel proceedings for the same cause of action.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the notice issued under section 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to quash the penalty order made under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1964-65. The petitioner contended that the notice was without jurisdiction and ultra vires due to vagueness, lack of indication of the alleged mistake, and the order having merged in the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.

2. The respondents argued that there was an arithmetical mistake in the penalty order, which justified rectification under section 154 of the Act. The penalty leviable was rectified to Rs. 1,17,073 from Rs. 55,545. The petitioner failed to appear for the hearing, and it was noted that the rectification had already been carried out by the respondent.

3. The court highlighted that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available by appealing to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which was exercised but unsuccessful. The court emphasized that the petitioner cannot pursue parallel proceedings for the same cause of action, especially when the impugned action was already subject to a regular reference before the court.

4. Due to subsequent events, including rectification by the respondent and the appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, the court concluded that no relief could be granted to the petitioner in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. As the petitioner was not represented, no order as to costs was made.

---