1969 (7) TMI 5

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Howrah. On March 18, 1961, the Income-tax Officer made assessment orders for the aforesaid assessment years under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act "). On February 25, 1963, respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the assessee under section 33B of the Act for cancelling the assessments and March 6, 1963, was fixed as the date of hearing. On the date of hearing no one attended on behalf of the assessee and an order was made by the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under section 33B of the Act cancelling the said assessment orders and directing the Income-tax Officer to make fresh assessments according to law. Being aggrieved by this order the appellant m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial jurisdiction of the High Court for issue of a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of an alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to issue a writ ; but, as observed by this court in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board Kairana, the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs and where such a remedy exists, it will be a sound exercise of discretion for the High Court to refuse to entertain a petition under article 226 unless there are good grounds therefor. The legal position has been clearly stated by Shah J., speaking for the court, in Shivram Poddar v. Income-tax Officer : " It is, however, necessary once more to observe, as we did in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e also we arc satisfied that the appellant is not entitled to any relief. The High Court has found after examination of the evidence that an opportunity was given to the appellant to be heard before respondent No. 1 made the order under section 33B of the Act. The appellant had declared No. 28, J. N Mukherjee Road, Howrah, to be her address. She had admitted that she had received all notices of demand under section 29 of the Act at the same address. It appears that the order made under section 33B of the Act was served on the appellant at the same address by affixation. The case of the appellant is that the did not know that the notice was affixed by the inspector, D. N. Datta, on February 28, 1963, at the same address. D. N. Datta stated i....