S K VEERARAGHAVAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are civil revision petitions under article 227 of the Constitution of India. They are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax declining to interfere under section 33A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, with the inclusion by the Income-tax Officer of two sums in the total income for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The Commissioner in so declining to interfere mentioned two reasons. One, was that the petitioner himself in a letter of his dated February 25, 1961 had admitted that there would be additional profits accrued to him in the assessment years to the extent added to the total income. The other was, though the petitioner had preferred appeals against the orders of the Income-tax Officer, they did not extend to the inclusion of the two amounts.The appeals were allowed and the Income-tax Officer was directed to proceed afresh. But the Commissioner thought that this would make no difference to the result of the petitions under section 33A(2) The jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution is a very extraordinary one and has to be resorted to only sparingly. It is not to be resorted to as a substitute for revisional jurisdiction.

(2.) THE jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution is a supervisory one and is not available where subordinate authorities in discharge of their judicial or quasi-judicial functions act within their jurisdiction but make otherwise erroneous orders. Even errors of jurisdiction may not normally be within the purview of article 227 of the Constitution. THE petitions before us would not, therefore, be properly entertained under article 227 of the Constitution. Apparently, the petitioner, when he filed the revision petitions, mistakenly thought that article 226 of the Constitution would not be available. In the particular circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the revision petitions may be treated as petitions under article 226 of the Constitution to quash the orders of the CommissionerIt appears the petitioner requested the Commissioner to give a hearing to him or his counsel before disposing of the petitions under section 33A(2). But it is not in controversy before us that the Commissioner failed to give the petitioner that opportunity.