The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a statutory remedy is available for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, unless there are exceptional circumstances warranting such interference.

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner prays for quashing the notice dated 24.3.2015 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) for the assessment year 2008-09, order dated 21.3.2016 disposing of the legal objections filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and final order dated 31.3.2016 passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Act reassessing the income of the petitioner.

2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. For the relevant assessment year 2008-09, the petitioner filed return of income declaring income of Rs.766,72,79,900/- under the normal provisions of the Act and book profit under section 115JB of the Act amounting to Rs.14,98,73,68,662/-. Original assessment was completed vide order dated 27.12.2010, Annexure P.2 passed under section 143(3) of the Act after examining complete records including books of account, return of income and accompanying documents filed by the petitioner. Deduction under Section 80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs.223,80,25,060/- as against Rs.428,94,98,566/- claimed by the petitioner and deduction under section 80IB of the Act was varied to Rs.65,764,60,593/- against Rs.62,99,55,219/- claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid additions/disallowances before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 11.7.2011, Annexure P.3 the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Against the said order, cross appeals by the petitioner and the department were filed which are pending before the Tribunal. In the meantime, an order setting aside the original assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) while exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on certain issues. In the fresh assessment completed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Act, further additions/disallowance were made by the Assessing Officer on the issue of capital subsidy, disallowances of gratuity and additional depreciation on computer software. The appeals against the order of the CIT under Section 263 of the Act as well as against the fresh assessment completed pursuant thereto were partly allowed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, reassessment proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the Act vide impugned notice dated 24.3.2015, Annexure P.1 issued under section 148 of the Act. The petitioner filed detailed legal objections to the initiation of reassessment proceedings on various grounds vide letter dated 25.8.2015, Annexure P.4. The petitioner vide letter dated 29.3.2016, Annexure P.5 objected to the passing of the order dated 21.3.2016 disposing of the legal objections raised for initiating reassessment proceedings at the fag end of the limitation period and again requested respondent No.1 to drop the reassessment proceedings. The legal objections were however, dismissed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 21.3.2016, Annexure P.1 which was received by the petitioner on 28.3.2016 i.e. three days prior to the limitation period for completion of assessment, leaving no time for the petitioner to approach this court to assail the said order. Respondent No.1 however, proceeded to complete reassessment vide final order dated 31.3.2016 under section 143/147 of the Act i.e. within three days of receipt of order disposing of the legal objections without providing adequate opportunity to make further submissions. Hence the instant writ petition.

3. We have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner.

4. Admittedly, the original assessment order was passed on 27.12.2010 under section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed appeal before the CIT(A). Vide order dated 11.7.2011, the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Against the said order, the petitioner as well as the department filed appeals before the Tribunal which are pending. During the pendency of the appeal,