By Sri. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate For Sri. Harish v. Income Tax Officerward 9(2), 6[!%]Floor, Unity Building Annexe,Mission Road,Bangalore -560 027

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU| DATHKD THIS THER DAY OF MARCH, 2018| BEFORE ‘THR HON’BLE MRS..JUSTICK S.SUJATHAWRIT PETITION No.43193/2015 (TIT) BETWEEN Priti Viren MehtaW/o. Viren R Mehta, Aged about 51 Years,Residing at: No. 15, S.J.P. Road Cross, Bengaluru — 960 O02. ....Petitione (By Sri. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate |for Sri. Harish V. 8., Advocate) AND: Income Tax OfficerWard 9(2), 6[!%]Floor, |Unity Building Annexe,Mission Road,Bangalore -560 027.. ....Respondent (By Sri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of|the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned|assessment order passed by the respondent under Section|147 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 24.03.2014 for the assessment year 2006-07 1i.e.,Annexure-B and consequential notice of demand issued by|the respondent in Form-7, dated 24.03.2014 for the)assessment year 2006-07 i1.e., Annexure-C and etc., This writ petition coming on for|preliminary hearing in|‘B’ Group, this day, the court made the following: ORDER Petitioner has called in question the legality and|correctness of the impugned assessment order passed by)the respondent under Section 14/7 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) dated|24.03.2014 relating to the assessment year 2006-2007 andconsequential notice of demand at Annexures-B and C|respectively to the writ petition. 2 |Learned counsel for the petitioner wouldcontend that the order impugned is hit by the principles otnatural justice as the adverse material against the)petitioner-assessee was not confronted or furnished to the)petitioner but on third party’s information, the impugned|assessment order has been passed. 3.|Heard the learned counsel appearing for therespective parties. 4This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction|under Articles 226 and 227 oft the Constitution of Indiacircumventing the availability of alternative remedy by way|ol an appeal provided under the Act. Hence, the present|petition cannot be maintained and is disposed ofwithliberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy by|way of an appeal available under the provisions of the Act. | With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands|disposed of. No costs. Mds/- Sd/-) JUDGE |