Alternative statutory remedy, limitation, and rectification power under income-tax law defeat challenge to notice and correction.

Writ relief under article 226 was treated as unavailable where an effective statutory revision under the Income-tax Act remained unexhausted and no manifest injustice was shown, so the challenge to maintainability failed. The rectification notice was not established to be time-barred because limitation under section 35(5) depended on undisclosed final order dates. The Income-tax Officer was also held to have power to correct an inadvertent mistake in the rectification order, as a patent error in income-tax proceedings could be rectified within the applicable statutory or inherent power. The assessee therefore obtained no relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition under article 226 was maintainable despite the availability of a revisional remedy under the Income-tax Act, (ii) whether the notice for rectification under section 35 was barred by limitation, and (iii) whether the Income-tax Officer had power to correct the mistake in the rectification order.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition under article 226 was maintainable despite the availability of a revisional remedy under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The remedy of revision under section 33A(2) was available against the impugned order, and the petitioner had not invoked it. In writ jurisdiction, relief is not granted merely because an error of law or even a jurisdictional error is alleged; the petitioner must also show manifest injustice. The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy was a substantial bar to interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on this ground and the objection was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the notice for rectification under section 35 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: Under section 35(5), limitation depended upon the date of the final orders passed in the cases of the firms from which the family derived share income. Since those dates were not disclosed, it could not be held that the notice issued on 7 September 1959 was beyond time.

Conclusion: The notice was not shown to be barred by limitation and the objection failed.

Issue (iii): whether the Income-tax Officer had power to correct the mistake in the rectification order.

Analysis: The mistake was an inadvertent error in applying the rectification to the wrong assessment order. The proceedings before the Income-tax Officer were treated as judicial proceedings, and such proceedings carry an inherent power to correct patent mistakes. The rectification was therefore within power.

Conclusion: The Income-tax Officer had power to make the correction and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rectification notice and order failed on maintainability, limitation, and merits, so the assessee obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not interfere where an effective statutory revision lies unexhausted and no manifest injustice is shown, and a patent inadvertent error in income-tax proceedings may be corrected within the statutory or inherent power of rectification.

---