The jurisdiction to rectify an assessment under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, flows from the provisions contained in the statute and not from the notice. A notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not invalid and does not deprive the revenue authorities of jurisdiction to rectify the assessment under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is from an order of Mitra J. , dated November 23, 1966.

( 2 ) THE appellant made an application under Article 226 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the records of the proceedings relating to orders dated April 6, 1964. The orders dated April 6, 1964, were passed by the revenue.

( 3 ) THE orders were passed under these circumstances. The appellant filed returns for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58, and was assessed on March 30, 1961, and March 20, 1962, respectively. By letter dated September 2, 1963, the petitioner was called to produce his books of account for 2012 Ram-Navami and 2013 Ram-Navami on September 6, 1968. The petitioner produced the books of account before respondent No. 2 as required and respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to explain why there was a difference between the amounts of certain commission paid by Searsole Coal Co. Ltd. to the petitioner as disclosed by that company and the amounts shown in the returns filed by the petitioner. On January 27, 1964, the petitioner received two notices under Sections 154/155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By these notices the petitioner was informed that in respect of the assessments for the years 1956-57 and 1957-58 there were mistakes apparent from the record within the meaning of Sections 154/155 of the said 1961 Act, and rectification of such mistakes would have the effect of increasing the petitioner's liability. The appellant wrote to respondent No. 2 that on principle he had no objection to rectification of the error as in his view the commission amount received from Searsole Coal Co. Ltd. and disallowed in their hands in the income-tax proceedings should not have been completely excluded while computing the taxable income. He, however, added that the same should have been considered for rate purposes.

( 4 ) IT is under these circumstances that two orders were passed on April 6, 1964. The effect of the two orders is that the appellant was made liable for payment of tax. In the orders dated April 6, 1964, for two assessment years the revenue authorities stated that in the original assessment which was completed on March 30, 1961, there appeared certain mistakes inasmuch as the Income-tax Officer failed to include a portion of the income of the commission, which was disallowed in the hands of the payer company, to the total income of the assessee-firm for the rate purposes and further that the appellant-assessee's profit in the share investment was not included in the total income. The orders concluded by stating that the mistake being apparent from the record was then rectified under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, after obtaining no objection from the authorised representative of the assessee-firm.

( 5 ) THE contentions on behalf of the appellant were first that the notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was invalid. It was said that a notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would be for assessment under the 1961 Act and in view of the fact that the assessment in the present case was under the Income-tax Act, 1922, a notice under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not enure to the validity of rectification under Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Secondly, it was said that if there, was any mistake it should be a mistake appearing from the record and that in the present case there was no such mistake. Thirdly, it was said that the revenue authorities looked into matters beyond their authority and jurisdiction and, therefore, the orders were bad. The pre-eminent question in this appeal is whether the notice in the present case under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid and deprives the revenue authorities of jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. It will appear from Section 297 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and particularly under Sub-section (2) and Clauses (a) and (b) thereof, that in spite of the repeal of the 1922 Inc