The respondent tlnn \as duly registered under the J nco me-tax Act. 1922 as well as the lncome tax Act, 1961. In the original asses ments of the firm fo the years 19.58-59, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 assessments were made on the sJab rates prescribed under the respective Finance Acts applicable to registered firms. In the individual asses ments of the partners, their repective shares in the income of the firm \ere included and assesed at the maximum rates since their assessmcm l> were made in the status of non-resident. On February 1, · 1965 the re:.· pondcnt firm was served wi1h notices dated January 29, 1965 by th(! Income-tax Officer intimating to it that in its assessments for the fouf cars in question there were mitakes apparent from the record inasmuch as the firm l1ad not been -charged at the maximum T'!tes of tax - under s. 17(1) of the Income tax Act, 1922 and that therefore he proposed h ) rectify those assessment'!> under s. 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961. E. Thereafter the Income-tax Onicer assesstd the respondent firm by appJy;ng the provisions of s. 17( 1) (lf the 1912 Act. The respondent challend the vnlidity of the said orders in n writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court l1cld that s here was no obvious and patent mistake jn the <)riginnJ ~l~!:>es!ill"lent orders and therefore th lncomc ta" Officer wa ... not competent to pass the impugned ordcr't F \lndcr s. J54. Jn apJ')Cal by certificate,
