Administrative revisional orders are not amenable to certiorari absent clear error of law on the record.

A revisional order made by the Commissioner under Section 33A of the Indian Income Tax Act was treated as administrative rather than judicial or quasi-judicial, because the provision created an internal executive review mechanism and did not require adjudication of a lis inter partes. It was therefore not amenable to certiorari under Article 226. The Court also found no error of law apparent on the face of the record and no basis to interfere with the Commissioner's income recomputation merely because the assessee preferred a different estimate. The challenge to the revisional order was rejected on both jurisdiction and merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 33A of the Indian Income Tax Act was an administrative order not amenable to certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the Commissioner's order was liable to be quashed for error of law apparent on the face of the record or for failure to make a proper recomputation of income.

Issue (i): Whether an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 33A of the Indian Income Tax Act was an administrative order not amenable to certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Section 33A was held to be a revisional provision intended to provide administrative machinery by which a higher executive officer reviews the acts of subordinate authorities. The power could be exercised on the Commissioner's own motion or on application by the assessee, but the statute did not require adjudication of a lis inter partes or impose a duty to act judicially. The scheme of the Income Tax Act also provided a complete appellate structure apart from revision, and the revisional power was treated as distinct from judicial or quasi-judicial adjudication.

Conclusion: The order under Section 33A was administrative in nature and was not liable to be quashed by certiorari.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner's order was liable to be quashed for error of law apparent on the face of the record or for failure to make a proper recomputation of income.

Analysis: The Court found no inherent impossibility in the estimate of income made by the Commissioner. The reference to the brokerage figure did not establish that the assessed income was legally impossible, and the Commissioner had stated that all relevant facts were considered. The order did not disclose an error of law apparent on the face of the record, and the Court declined to interfere merely because the assessee sought a different computation on the materials before the authorities.

Conclusion: The order was not vitiated on merits and did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed both on the jurisdictional objection and on merits, and the challenge to the Commissioner's revisional order was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order passed by the Commissioner under Section 33A of the Indian Income Tax Act is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial, and is not amenable to certiorari under Article 226 unless a clear error of law apparent on the face of the record is shown.

---