TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the respondent No.2 w.r.t. the Petitioner Firm for the Assessment Year 2001-2002; (b) For a writ of certiorari or any other applicable writ or order or direction quashing the transfer order dated 18/19.01.2006 passed by the Respondent No.1 w.r.t. the Petitioner Firm for the Assessment Year 2001-2002." 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner firm is that despite it having been closed down its business with effect from 30.11.2001, the respondent No.1 without following the procedure laid down under Section 127(1) & 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short 'Act') has illegally vide order dated 18/19.01.2006 transferred the case of the petitioner firm from ITO, Parwanoo to ITO, Una and thereafter respondent No.2 has illegally passed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the notice was never a partner in the petitioner firm. It is also averred that the address Bitana Road was never submitted in the office of the respondents and these notices infact appeared to have been sent continuously at wrong address, though the respondents were having the addresses of the partners as contained in partnership deed dated 01.04.2000. It is lastly averred that all the notices sent subsequently under Sections 142/143 of the Act were duly received by the partners of the petitioner firm as the same were sent at the addresses as given in the partnership deed dated 01.40.2000. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record. 5. At the outset, it may be observed that there is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is more than settled that when more than one remedy is available to a party in respect of the same grievance, it is open for that party to elect or to choose his remedy. But, once he chooses his remedy, all incidents attached to that remedy must follow. Reference may be made to Nagubai Ammal and others versus B. Shama Rao and others, AIR 1956 SC 593 wherein relying on the observations of Lord Justice Scrutton, in Verschures Creameries Ltd. v. Hull and Netherland Streamship Company Limited (1921) 2 K.B. 608 (D), it was observed:- "The ground of the decision is that when on the same facts, a person has the right to claim one of two reliefs and with full knowledge he elects to claim one and obtains it, it is not open to him thereafter to go ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of the same matter at the same time. 12. In Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay versus Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. and Ors., 1995 1 SCC 642, the petitioner therein had filed a writ petition during the pendency of the appeal before the Statutory Authority. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that such a writ was not maintainable. 13. In S.J.S.Business Enterprises(P) Ltd. versus State of Bihar and Ors., 2004 Supp 2 JT 601, the Court held that mere availability of alternative forum for appropriate relief does not impinge upon the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with the matter. Even if it is not a position to do so on the basis of the affidavits filed, however, if a party has already availed the alternative remedy while ....