VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THESE Writ Petitions were filed on 17. 3. 2005 and Notice came to be issued on 21. 3. 2005. It pertains to combined Assessment Years (AYs) 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) had allowed the petitioner's Appeal on 23. 6. 2000 and had held that "it is imperative in the interest of justice and fairplay to set aside and restore the matter to the assessing Officer for reconsideration after giving sufficient reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish necessary details, explanations and evidences in support of the above and then to pass fresh orders as per law, rule and CBDT circulars". The Petitioner submits that it had apprised the assessing Officer (AO) of these Orders of the ITAT in August, 2002. Reliance has been placed on Section 153 (2a) of the Income Tax Act (IT Act) which, at the relevant time, mandated that a 'fresh Assessment' in pursuance of an Order under sections 250, 254, 263 or 264, setting aside or cancellation of an order must be made before the expiry of two years (currently one year) from the end of the financial Year in which such order is received by the Chief Commissioner or commissioner. It appears that on 22. 12. 2004 the AO eventually issued a Notice under Section 152 of the IT Act to the Petitioner, who immediately responded vide its communications dated 11. 1. 2005 and 24. 2. 2005 that the proceedings were no longer competent, as they had travelled beyond the time prescribed in Section 153 (2a) of the statute. The present Writ Petition is predicated on this factual matrix. The AO, however, framed the Assessment on 28. 2. 2005, i. e. , before the filing of the present Writ Petition. Indeed, it is remarkable that the averment in the Writ Petition is that as on 11. 3. 2005 "the assessing officer despite objection is adamant in framing assessment despite the fact that he has no jurisdiction, the Petitioner is left with no alternative but to file the present Petition", whereas the Assessment had by then already been completed.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the Revenue it has been asseverated that the AO issued a notice under Section 143 (2) of the IT Act and served the same on the Petitioner on 2. 9. 2004, requiring the Petitioner to appear on 10. 9. 2004 As there was no representation for the Petitioner on that date, a notice under Section 142 of the Act was issued on 22. 12. 2004, requiring the Petitioner to produce its Books of Accounts and Vouchers. On the Petitioner's request the hearing was adjourned to 4. 1. 2005 and thereafter to 11. 1. 2005, 21. 1. 2005, 27. 1. 2005 and then 3. 2. 2005. It is further pleaded that the Petitioner was informed that the matter was only partly set aside by the ITAT and therefore the proceedings were legally competent. At that stage the Petitioner's representatives sought time to file Written Arguments and argue the matter on merits, and accordingly the case was adjourned to 17. 2. 2005. Written Arguments were filed on 24. 2. 2005 on which date the case was further discussed. The AO thereafter passed the Orders dated 28. 2. 2005. The stand of the Revenue is that Section 153 (2a) is not attracted; that the Writ Petition ought not to be entertained since the petitioner could have assailed the Orders dated 28. 2. 2005 by means of an Appeal. We propose to discuss the maintainability of a writ petition filed in these circumstances, before analyzing the provisions of Section 153 of the IT Act. Admittedly, no Appeal has been preferred by the Petitioner against the said orders dated 28. 2. 2005 till date.

( 3 ) IN The National Institute of Immunology -vs- Municipal Corporation of delhi, AIR 2002 Delhi 192 a Division Bench has rejected a request for dismissal of the Writ Petition on the grounds that the Petitioners have not approached the appellate Authority against the action of the Assessing Authority, holding that declining to entertain a writ petition because of the availability of an alternative remedy is only a self-im