Court upholds assessment order, stresses importance of timely appeal & cooperation. Appellants can challenge through proper process.

The High Court refused to interfere with the assessment order due to the belated challenge and lack of cooperation by the deceased petitioner. Despite opportunities, no fresh evidence was provided. The Court emphasized the importance of utilizing the statutory remedy of appeal and seeking condonation of delay. The dismissal of the writ appeal does not prevent the appellants from challenging the assessment through the proper appellate process if an appeal is admitted.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, Failure to cooperate with proceedings, Lack of challenge to assessment order, Delay in filing writ petition, Lack of service of demand notice, Refusal to interfere with recovery proceedings, Observations in judgment affecting statutory remedy of appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to an assessment order finalized against the deceased 1st writ petitioner for the assessment year 1999-2000. The deceased petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, which led to the assessment being set aside and remitted back to the assessing authority for a fresh assessment order. The deceased petitioner failed to cooperate with the proceedings due to illness, leading to the finalization of the assessment order under Ext.P5(a). The main contention raised was the lack of a notice of demand along with the assessment order, which was refuted by the Department with evidence of the demand notice being served in 2006. The Single Judge refused to interfere with the assessment order due to the belated challenge and lack of cooperation by the assessee.

The High Court noted that the original assessment was completed in 2004, with the revision petition leading to the remand order in 2006. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee did not provide fresh evidence or request cross-examination of loan creditors. The assessment order was served to the assessee in 2007, but no action was taken until 2011. The writ petition challenging the assessment was filed in 2013 after recovery steps were initiated. The Court found that neither the assessee nor the legal heirs attempted to challenge the assessment through the statutory remedy of appeal, justifying the refusal to interfere with the recovery proceedings.

The Court emphasized that the observations in the judgment should not prevent the appellants from seeking the statutory remedy of appeal by seeking condonation of delay. The dismissal of the writ appeal does not foreclose the appellants from challenging the revised assessment through the proper appellate process. If an appeal is admitted, the appellate authority is directed to independently deal with the matter to the extent it is admitted under the law.

---