Writ petition challenging tax assessment premature; alternative remedies under Income Tax Act available. Petitioner granted time to appeal.

The High Court found the writ petition challenging the Assessment Order and Demand Notice premature and not maintainable as alternative remedies under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were available. The court granted the petitioner three weeks to appeal before the appropriate authorities, emphasizing a decision on the appeal's merits in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment Order and Demand Notice challenged under Sections 147 and 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice due to non-supply of draft assessment order.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition directly filed before the High Court without exhausting alternative remedies under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260A of the Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order and Demand Notice issued under Sections 147 and 144(B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel argued that the order was passed without considering the petitioner's replies and without supplying the draft assessment order, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order on these grounds.

2. In response, the counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 contended that the draft assessment order had been supplied to the petitioner, contradicting the petitioner's claim. The respondents' counsel argued that the impugned assessment order was appealable under Section 246-A of the Act, 1961 before the Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), and subsequently before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 254. The counsel further highlighted the availability of a remedy to file an appeal before the High Court under Section 260-A of the Act, 1961, making the direct writ petition before the High Court premature.

3. After hearing both parties, the court noted the availability of alternative remedies under Sections 246-A, 254, and 260A of the Act, 1961 for the petitioner. The court found the writ petition premature and not maintainable at that stage. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner three weeks to appeal before the appropriate authorities, emphasizing that the authorities should decide the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The court disposed of the writ petition with these observations.

---