Valid return and jurisdictional challenge prevent reassessment, while explained delay does not defeat certiorari or prohibition.

A return filed before the Income-tax Officer having custody of the assessee's file was treated as a valid return and could not be ignored merely because another officer might later claim territorial jurisdiction; on that footing, reassessment under section 148 could not proceed as if no return existed, and the notice was invalid. Delay of about four years did not bar certiorari or prohibition where the challenge was to alleged want or excess of jurisdiction, especially when the delay was explained by repeated file transfers and continued departmental objections. The impugned notice and consequential proceedings were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a return filed before the Income-tax Officer, Refund Circle, was a valid return so as to prevent reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1956-57; (ii) Whether delay of about four years in approaching the High Court barred relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India in a petition seeking certiorari and prohibition against an allegedly jurisdiction notice.

Issue (i): Whether a return filed before the Income-tax Officer, Refund Circle, was a valid return so as to prevent reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1956-57.

Analysis: The return had been filed when the assessee's file and general index number were with the Refund Circle officer. Under the scheme of the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922, sections 5(5), 64(1), 64(2) and 64(4) did not make that filing ineffective merely because another officer might ultimately have territorial jurisdiction. The officer receiving the return could transfer the file if needed, but the return itself could not be ignored. A return voluntarily filed before assessment must be acted upon, and reassessment machinery cannot be used as if no return existed.

Conclusion: The notice under section 148 was invalid in so far as it proceeded on the footing that no return had been filed, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether delay of about four years in approaching the High Court barred relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India in a petition seeking certiorari and prohibition against an allegedly jurisdiction notice.

Analysis: The delay was explained by repeated transfers of the assessment file between different officers and by the assessee's continuous challenge to the notice before the department. In proceedings for certiorari and prohibition, where the challenge is to want of jurisdiction or exercise of jurisdiction in excess of jurisdiction, delay is not treated as a decisive bar in the same manner as in a mandamus case. The court also relied on the principle that prohibition and certiorari are appropriate where jurisdiction is lacking or exceeded.

Conclusion: The delay did not disentitle the assessee to relief, and this issue was also decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned notice and the consequential proceedings were quashed, and the writ petition succeeded with no order as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A return validly filed before an Income-tax Officer having custody of the assessee's file cannot be ignored for reopening proceedings, and laches will not ordinarily defeat certiorari or prohibition where the challenge is to a patent lack or excess of jurisdiction.

---