Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

By medium of this writ petition, the following reliefs have been prayed for:-

“(a) For a writ of certiorari or any other applicable writ or order or direction quashing the assessment order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the respondent No.2 w.r.t. the Petitioner Firm for the Assessment Year 2001-2002;

(b) For a writ of certiorari or any other applicable writ or order or direction quashing the transfer order dated 18/19.01.2006 passed by the Respondent No.1 w.r.t. the Petitioner Firm for the Assessment Year 2001-2002.”

2. The pleaded case of the petitioner firm is that despite it having been closed down its business with effect from 30.11.2001, the respondent No.1 without following the procedure laid down under Section 127(1) & 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short ‘Act’) has illegally vide order dated 18/19.01.2006 transferred the case of the petitioner firm from ITO, Parwanoo to ITO, Una and thereafter respondent No.2 has illegally passed the assessment order dated 26.12.2006 making an ex parte assessment of Rs.4,82,565/-.

3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein they have raised the preliminary objection regarding the very maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petitioner firm has already questioned the impugned order of assessment by filing an appeal and, therefore, cannot be permitted to choose two forums in respect of the same subject matter for the same relief by filing the instant petition. It is not disputed that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was received back on 01.07.2005 with the remark “addressee left the place hence returned”. However, it is claimed that the notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 22.06.2005 was infact received by Smt. Renu Aggarwal and Smt. Beena Mittal, partners of the petitioner firm, on 05.07.2005 and the photocopy of the registered A.D. has been annexed as Annexure R-2. Lastly, it is claimed that notices were infact issued to the petitioner firm calling upon it as to why the case be not transferred to ITO, Una, but the petitioner firm did not choose to file its reply and consequently the case was transferred and decided by the ITO, Una.

4. The petitioner firm has filed rejoinder wherein it has been specifically denied that the notice dated 22.06.2005 was ever received by any of the partners. It is further averred that purported notices were served at the address of the factory site which had been closed long back and secondly one Anita in the notice was never a partner in the petitioner firm. It is also averred that the address Bitana Road was never submitted in the office of the respondents and these notices infact appeared to have been sent continuously at wrong address, though the respondents were having the addresses of the partners as contained in partnership deed dated 01.04.2000. It is lastly averred that all the notices sent subsequently under Sections 142/143 of the Act were duly received by the partners of the petitioner firm as the same were sent at the addresses as given in the partnership deed dated 01.40.2000.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

5. At the outset, it may be observed that there is no dispute that the petitioner firm prior to filing of the instant petition has already assailed the assessment order dated 26.12.2006 by filing statutory appeal under Section 246A (1) (b) of the Act before the appellate authority. Therefore, the moot question is whether the petitioner firm can maintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs for which it has already availed the alternate remedy by filing the appeal, as the merits of the case can only be gone into by this Court after it holds the petition to be legally maintainable.

6. Ordinarily, where the parties have more than one remedy available, they have to elect or select one of the remedies. In case, if the party is allowed to select multiple remedies in multiple Forums and Courts, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document