Writ interference with income-tax revision is limited absent patent jurisdictional error or apparent legal mistake.

Revisional orders under the Income-tax Act are not to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless a patent jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record is shown. The commentary states that the Commissioner's revisional exercise remained within the statutory framework because it was based on the record and CBDT directions, and no breach of those directions was established. It further notes that factual findings on gross profit could not be reappreciated in writ proceedings, and that clubbing separate assessment-year orders in one writ petition was an additional infirmity. The revisional orders were therefore sustained and writ relief was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax, while exercising revisional power, acted in violation of the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and thereby committed a jurisdictional error. (ii) Whether the writ court could interfere with the revisional findings on gross profit and the challenge to composite orders for different assessment years.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax, while exercising revisional power, acted in violation of the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and thereby committed a jurisdictional error.

Analysis: The revisional authority proceeded on the basis of the record and the directions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The assessment orders for the relevant years were examined in the light of the tribunal's observations, and the Commissioner found no reason to interfere. The Board's directions were not breached, and the revisional exercise remained within the statutory framework.

Conclusion: The challenge on the ground of breach of the Board's directions failed, and the Commissioner's order was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ court could interfere with the revisional findings on gross profit and the challenge to composite orders for different assessment years.

Analysis: The writ court held that it could not sit in appeal over the Commissioner's factual findings unless a patent illegality or jurisdictional error was shown. No such error was demonstrated. The court also noted that separate orders for different assessment years had been clubbed in one writ petition, which was another infirmity in the petition.

Conclusion: Interference in writ jurisdiction was declined, and the challenge to the findings and composite petition was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revisional orders were sustained, and no writ relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ jurisdiction, factual findings of the income-tax authorities and revisional orders under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 will not be disturbed in the absence of a patent jurisdictional error or an error apparent on the face of the record.

---