ORDER :

The order dated 31.10.2014 in reply to the objection for reopening of the Assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 on 25.10.2015, at Chennai. It commenced its operations in the field of Aviation. Based on the returns submitted by the petitioner, an assessment order was passed by the competent authority on 22.12.2011 under Section 143 (3) of the Act. However, within a period of four weeks, the proceedings for reopening of assessment order was initiated under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2014 and the petitioner filed his reply on 22.04.2014. The reasons for reopening of assessment was furnished in proceedings dated 07.05.2014 and the objections were submitted by the petitioner on 06.06.2014 and the objections were disposed of by the authority competent on 31.10.2014 with reference to the assessment year 2009-10. The said proceedings dated 31.10.2014 is under challenge in W.P.No.8761 of 2015. A conditional interim order was granted by this Court stating that the stay holds good in the event of not passing the assessment order by competent authority. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the assessment order was passed by the competent authority and therefore, the writ petitioner was constrained to file another writ petition in W.P.No.10211 of 2015 challenging the assessment order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) in proceedings dated 25.03.2015.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that though an assessment order was passed, the grounds raised in the first Writ Petition filed in W.P.No.8761 of 2015 holds good and the grounds raised is the basis for the case of the petitioner. The said grounds are to be considered even with reference to the assessment order passed subsequently during the pendency of the first Writ Petition. In other words, it is contended that the very initiation of reopening the proceedings under Section 147, issuance of notice under Section 148 and the reasons furnished are untenable and therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner solicited the attention of this Court with reference to the reasons furnished by the respondent for reopening of assessment and the sustainability of the reasons with reference to the reply given by the petitioner. This Court is of the considered opinion that the mixed question of fact and law is to be decided with reference to the original documents and evidences by the appellate authority in the present case, as statutory appeal is contemplated under the provisions of the Income Tax Act.

5. Preferring an appeal is the rule. Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception. Undoubtedly, writ proceedings may be entertained before exhausting the appellate remedy. However, it is to be ensured that there is an imminent threat or gross injustice warranting urgent relief to be granted. Mere violation of principles of natural justice is insufficient to entertain a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as every Writ Petition is filed based on one or the other ground stating that the principles of natural justice is violated or statutory requirements are not complied with or there is an illegality or otherwise. Thus, dispensing with an appellate remedy is to be granted cautiously in view of the fact that the very purpose and object of legislation providing an appellate remedy cannot be diluted nor the benefit be denied to the aggrieved person to exhaust the same. The statutory appellate authorities are the final fact finding authorities. Thus, the finding to be made by such appellate authorities with reference to the documents and evidences are of paramount importance for th