9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nges the order of assessment under section 148 on merits too. It is seen that the assessee filed its return of income for 2000-01 with the office of the respondent herein and claimed tax benefits under section 80-IA of the Income-tax Act. Admittedly, the return of income was deficient for want of financial statements. The said defect was not rectified within the time stipulated, in spite of a notice calling upon the petitioner to do so. The assessment was reopened under section 147. The petitioner had filed the financial statement, but asked for the return of income filed originally as a return, in response to section 148. The petitioner was called upon to furnish the required particulars as regards its claim for the benefit under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er failed to furnish any documentary evidence to support its claim. The respondent submitted that the petitioner sought for the transfer of its assessment files to Pondicherry. The Revenue contends that, in any event, this would not exonerate the responsibility of the petitioner to substantiate its claim with necessary evidence. The Revenue further stated that the petitioner sought for adjournments on several occasions on some pretext or the other, and after several adjournments, it submitted that all the books, computers and records were destroyed in a fire accident in Chennai, on January 6, 2002. In support of this, the petitioner filed a copy of the first information report dated November 11, 2002, nearly ten months after the alleged fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s preferred. Admittedly, the assessee has an alternative remedy, and it is not denied that it is an efficacious remedy. In a recent decision in Nedunchezhian (K.) (Dr.) v. Deputy CIT [2005] 279 ITR 342 (Mad), a Division Bench of this court, affirmed the decision in Nedunchezhian (K.) (Dr.) v. Deputy CIT [2005] 274 ITR 37 (Mad) and following the decision of the apex court, held that when there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily, writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be invoked and that the principle applies fully to the proceedings herein too. Considering the issues involved and applying the decision cited above, we dismiss the writ petition. It is open to the assessee/petitioner to prefer appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
