TMI Blog1994 (7) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. The petitioners are engaged in the business of construction of buildings and are assessees under the Income-tax Act. For the years 1989-90 and 1990-91, the petitioners filed their returns and claimed deductions under section 32A as well as section 80-I of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle, Chandigarh, finalised the assessment of the petitioners for the years 1989-90 and 1990-91 under section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioners filed separate appeals against the orders of assessment passed by the Assistant Commissioner. These appeals came to be allowed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dgment has been reversed, the appellate order has been rendered void and there is no justification for the petitioners to seek intervention of the court at the stage of notice. The respondent has pleaded that the petitioners can file a reply to the show-cause notice and convince the appellate authority that the provisions of section 154 are not attracted in their case and if at all a decision given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is adverse to the petitioners, they can avail of the remedy available to them under the provisions of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there is every reason for the petitioners to seek the intervention of the court even without filing a reply to the show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. It is admitted by both the sides that no order adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners has been issued by any competent authority. The only thing which has happened is that notices under section 154 of the Act have been issued to the petitioners calling upon them to submit reply as to why the deductions allowed to them by the earlier orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be not disallowed. In the show-cause notices, the respondent has described its earlier orders as suffering from a mistake of law. While issuing the show-cause notices, the authority can at best be said to have formed a tentative opinion about the existence of an error apparent on the face of the order or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed or even their objections are overruled, they have remedy available to them under the Act. In view of the availability of more than one remedy to the petitioners, which, in our opinion, cannot be termed as less effective, the extraordinary haste shown by the petitioners in approaching this court cannot be appreciated. The apex court as well as this court and other High Courts time had again emphasised the need for restraint on the part of the High Courts in interfering in such matters even before the passing of final orders. In CIT v. Premchan Jain [1991] 190 ITR 206, this court (sic) has examined an almost similar question and has held that issue of a notice at this stage of the proceedings is unwarranted. Similarly, in Eicher Good-Ear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
