Belated objection to place of assessment is barred, and writ relief is inappropriate where statutory appeals remain available.

An objection to the place of assessment under the Income-tax Act, 1922 had to be raised within the time allowed for filing the return in response to notice under Section 34; once that period expired, the objection was barred and could not later be entertained, and the Income-tax Officer was not required to refer it to the Commissioner. The High Court also stated that writ relief under Article 226 would ordinarily not be granted where the assessee had already been assessed and effective statutory appellate remedies remained available under the Act, especially since no challenge to the vires of the Act was involved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could challenge the place of assessment and the authority of the Income-tax Officer after expiry of the time allowed for filing the return under the notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. (ii) Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the assessee had already been assessed and statutory remedies of appeal remained available.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could challenge the place of assessment and the authority of the Income-tax Officer after expiry of the time allowed for filing the return under the notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: The second proviso to Section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 limited objections to the place of assessment to the time allowed for making the return in response to the notice. Where the assessee did not object within that period, the objection could not later be entertained, and the Income-tax Officer was not required to refer the matter to the Commissioner. The statutory scheme treated the place of assessment as a matter that had to be questioned promptly and within the prescribed time.

Conclusion: The objection to the place of assessment was barred and was not maintainable; the assessee failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the assessee had already been assessed and statutory remedies of appeal remained available.

Analysis: The assessee had already been assessed and could challenge liability and the amount of tax through the appellate machinery provided by the Income-tax Act, 1922. The availability of appeals under Sections 30, 33 and 66 of the Act weighed against interference at the writ stage. The case did not involve any challenge to the vires of the Act, and the existence of ordinary statutory remedies made immediate writ intervention inappropriate.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and left the assessee to pursue the statutory remedies; this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ application failed in view of the statutory bar against belated jurisdictional objection and the availability of alternative remedies under the income-tax appellate structure.

Ratio Decidendi: An objection to the place of assessment under Section 64(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 must be raised within the time prescribed by the notice, failing which it is barred, and writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be exercised where an effective statutory appellate remedy remains available.

---