Writ interference with income-tax assessment limited where limitation, concealment findings, and natural justice objections lack clear jurisdictional error.

A writ challenge to an income-tax assessment was said to fail where the limitation objection did not invalidate proceedings validly commenced under sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The note states that the longer limitation period depended on a concealment finding under section 28(1)(c), which the Income-tax Officer was entitled to determine within his existing jurisdiction, and any error would matter only if it were a manifest error on the face of the record. Allegations of concealment were treated as factual matters, and the materials were insufficient to justify writ interference. The availability of appeal and a section 27 remedy also weighed against bypassing the statutory process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order could be quashed in writ jurisdiction on the grounds that the order was barred by limitation, that the finding of concealment attracting the longer limitation period was , and that adequate opportunity had not been afforded in the assessment proceedings.

Analysis: The challenge based on limitation failed because the statutory bar under section 34(3) operated only at the stage of making the assessment order and did not invalidate the assessment proceedings already validly commenced under sections 22 and 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The finding that clause (c) of section 28(1) applied was a determination the Income-tax Officer was required to make in the course of the jurisdiction already vested in him, and any error in that finding could be corrected only if it amounted to a manifest error apparent on the face of the record. The alleged concealment findings were essentially questions of fact, and the material before the writ court was insufficient to justify interference. The existence of an appeal and an application under section 27 also made it inappropriate to bypass the statutory machinery. The complaint of inadequate opportunity similarly did not disclose a clear denial of natural justice on the materials placed before the court.

Conclusion: The writ court would not interfere with the assessment order, as no jurisdictional excess or manifest error apparent on the face of the record was shown.

---