Wp/350/2012 Of Asian Electronics Limited v. The Assistant Commissionr Of Income Tax (Osd) And Anr

vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.350 OF 2012 Asian Electronics Ltd....PetitionerV/s.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr....Respondents Mr.Mihir Naniwadekar with Mr.Durgesh Khanapurkar i/b India Law Alliance for the Petitioner.Mr.Vimal Gupta, Senior Counsel with Ms.Padma Divakar for the Respondents. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR & A.K. MENON, JJ.DATE : 14TH MARCH, 2014. P.C. :- 1.The petitioner has challenged the respondents’ action in reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2004-2005. The same was done after a period of over four years. Respondent No.1 rejected the objections by an order dated 23.09.2011. The Assessing Officer thereafter proceeded to pass the assessment order on 04.11.2011. The present writ petition was also filed on 04.11.2011. This assessment order was passed before the writ petition could have been served on the respondents. It is only when the matter was circulated on 29.11.2011 that the petitioner was informed that the final assessment order had been passed on 04.11.2011. A Division Bench of this Court granted the petitioner leave to amend the petition by challenging the assessment order as well. 2.The assessment order having been passed, we are not inclined in the facts and circumstances of this case to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We hasten to clarify that we do not for a moment suggest that the petitioner does not have a strong case against the decision to reopen the assessment. There is much to be said in favour of the petitioner. However, as the assessment order has been passed, we would, subject to what is stated hereafter, relegate the petitioner to the remedy provided under the Act itself. We do not suggest that this Court cannot interfere in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in any matter where the assessment order has been passed irrespective of the facts and circumstances of this case. 3.The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the C.I.T. (Appeals). It is clarified that in the event of the appeal not being entertained on merits, including on the ground that it is barred by limitation and the C.I.T. (Appeals) does not exercise power to condone the delay, this writ petition shall stand revived without further orders. (A.K. MENON, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)