AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The Petitioner is challenging Ext. P12 order of assessment passed by the IT authorities. The challenge is raised on many a ground, legal as well as factual.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there is absolutely no justification for issuance of Ext. P1 notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act and that the entire proceedings are vitiated on many a reason as clearly explained in the writ petition.
The Respondents have filed a statement rebutting the averments raised in the writ petition and also seeking to sustain Ext. P12 order. It is also made a mention therein that the Petitioner is very much having a remedy by way of appeal. This Court finds that the submission made from the part of the Respondents as to the alternate remedy is correct and sustainable. More so , in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in C.A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kottayam and Another, holding that the statute itself provides adequate remedy by way of appeal to the Tribunal and that the Appellant could not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Following the dictum as aforesaid, interference is declined. The Petitioner is permitted to pursue the remedy available under the statute, i.e., by way of appeal. If any such appeal is filed within three weeks from today, the same shall be caused to be entertained and appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.