Writ jurisdiction and wrong statutory reference: assessment stood because statutory remedies were not exhausted and no substantive invalidity appeared.

Writ relief under Article 226 was refused because the assessee had an adequate statutory appellate remedy and had already pursued it in part without pressing the old-Act objection. The court held that discretionary writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used where an equally efficacious appellate route remains available. It also stated that an assessment is not void merely because it cites the 1961 Act instead of the 1922 Act, so long as the authority had substantive power to make the assessment and the relevant provisions are substantially similar and in pari materia. Any issue about penalty or prosecution under the repealed or new Act was treated as premature.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 after pursuing statutory appellate remedies, and (ii) whether an assessment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was void or otherwise vitiated.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 after pursuing statutory appellate remedies.

Analysis: The assessee had knowledge of the contention that the old Act applied, raised it before the Income-tax Officer in correspondence, and then chose to proceed with the statutory appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner without pressing that point. A further appeal to the Tribunal was available. Where an equally efficacious alternative remedy exists and has been pursued in part, the writ court ordinarily should not grant discretionary relief unless adequate grounds are shown for bypassing that remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the circumstances, and the assessee was not entitled to relief under Article 226.

Issue (ii): Whether an assessment made under the Income-tax Act, 1961, instead of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was void or otherwise vitiated.

Analysis: A wrong reference to the statutory source of power does not by itself invalidate an order if the authority otherwise possessed power to make the order. The assessment provisions of section 23(3) of the 1922 Act and section 143(3) of the 1961 Act were treated as substantially similar and in pari materia. On that footing, the assessment could be sustained as an exercise of existing assessment power, and any question regarding penalty or prosecution under the repealed or new Act was regarded as premature.

Conclusion: The assessment was not void merely because it referred to the 1961 Act, and no present prejudice warranting interference was shown.

Final Conclusion: The assessment proceedings were not quashed, and the assessee's challenge failed because the statutory remedy should have been pursued rather than invoking writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: An order is not invalid merely because it cites the wrong statutory source if the authority had substantive power to make it, and writ relief may be refused where an adequate statutory appellate remedy remains available and has not been exhausted.

---