Satish Chandra, C.J.
1. This writ petition challenges the notice dated 13th January, 1977, issued under Sections 154/155 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by the ITO, Varanasi, stating that the petitioner-company's assessment in respect of the assessment year 1969-70 made on 25th January, 1973, requires to be amended as there is a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Sections 154/155 of the I.T. Act. It went on to state that the rectification of mistakes as per details given therein will have the effect of enhancing the assessment, etc., and if the petitioner wished to be heard, he was requested to appear on 22nd January, 1977. Annexed to the notice was a statement giving the nature of the mistakes proposed to be rectified. It contains as many as fifteen points on which the original assessment order needed rectification.
2. The petitioner, instead of appearing before the ITO and satisfying him that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in respect of any of the points mentioned in the notice, has approached this court directly for quashing the aforesaid notice.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company tried to satisfy us that none of the points mentioned in the statement annexed to the notice were such in respect of which it could be said that there was error apparent on the face of the record. The officer hence had no jurisdiction to rectify the original assessment order.
4. We have gone through the statement annexed to the notice, and we are satisfied that the petitioner's submissions raise debatable questions, Prima facie it is not at all clear that none of the points mentioned in the statement constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record so as to need rectification.
5. Further, the petitioner has been asked only to appear and be heard in the matter. The petitioner should have appeared before the ITO and made his submissions in respect of the various points mentioned in the notice, instead of directly approaching this court.
6. The ITO issued the notice because he felt that the original assessment order needed rectification. This is not a case in which this court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at this stage.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.