Court refuses petition challenging reassessment notice citing failure to follow prescribed procedure and available statutory remedies.

The Court declined to entertain the petition challenging the notice of reopening of assessment and the order of reassessment. The petitioner's failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure by not raising objections before the Assessing Officer, as mandated by the Supreme Court, and the availability of alternative statutory remedies were key factors in the Court's decision. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the appellate route for challenging the assessment, keeping all contentions open for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice of reopening of assessment and order of reassessment based on reasons provided by Assessing Officer.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background of the Case:
The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 declaring total income. The return was revised later, and the Assessing Officer accepted the revised income after scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Reopening of Assessment:
The Assessing Officer issued a notice for reopening the assessment, to which the petitioner responded by filing a return and requesting the reasons for reopening. The reasons were provided, and the petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the notice without raising objections before the Assessing Officer, which was against the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts case.

3. Objections and Reassessment:
The petitioner later raised objections to the notice of reopening, which were disposed of by the Assessing Officer. Due to the approaching deadline for assessment, the Assessing Officer passed the order of reassessment. The petitioner then approached the Court again challenging the notice of reopening and the order of reassessment.

4. Court's Decision:
The Court was called upon to decide whether the petitioner should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner argued that the notice of reopening was not sustainable as it was issued beyond the prescribed period without any failure on the part of the assessee. However, the Court decided not to entertain the petition based on various reasons.

5. Reasons for Not Entertaining the Petition:
The Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the Court without raising objections before the Assessing Officer, breaching the procedure set by the Supreme Court. The petitioner's conduct led to a situation where the Assessing Officer had limited time to dispose of objections and complete the assessment, as per the formula provided by the Court in a previous case.

6. Alternative Statutory Remedy:
The Court referred to various decisions and highlighted that ordinarily, a Writ Petition should not be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should take the appellate route for challenging the assessment made by the Assessing Officer.

7. Conclusion:
The Court refused to entertain the petition, allowing the petitioner to challenge the assessment order before the Appellate Authority. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's bona fide pursuit of remedies before the Court and kept all contentions of the petitioner open for further proceedings.

In summary, the Court decided not to entertain the petition challenging the notice of reopening of assessment and the order of reassessment due to the petitioner's failure to follow the prescribed procedure and the availability of alternative statutory remedies.

---