PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, a company, incorporated under the Companies Act is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of Ata, Maida and Sooji. The dispute relates to the Assessment Year 2008-2009 for which the petitioner filed its return of income on 27th of September, 2008 declaring an income of Rs.28,23,090/-. The return was picked up for scrutiny and the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act was taken out and it was completed on the total income of Rs.29,53,540/-. The said assessment order dated 22.3.2013 has been revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax/Respondent no.1 in exercise of power conferred on it under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.3.2013 of the respondent no.1, the present writ petition has been filed claiming a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.3.2013 and writ in the nature of prohibition has also been claimed prohibiting the respondent no.2 to proceed further for the Assessment Year 2008-2009 consequent of the impugned order dated 22.5.2013.
(2.) HEARD Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is incorrect on merits. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the approach of the respondent no.1 that proper inquiry before finalizing the assessment proceeding was not done by the Assessing Officer is factually incorrect. Number of queries were raised by the Assessing Officer which were replied by the petitioner. The reply of the petitioner which consists of approximately one thousand pages is indicative of the fact that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the reply submitted by the petitioner and it does not matter if the assessment order is brief or it does not contain reasons, if any, accepting the reply of the petitioner, is of little consequence as the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the reply. A distinction in between the cases where no inquiry before completing the assessment was conducted or inquiry in details was not conducted, was pointed out by the petitioner's counsel to lay emphasis that it is a case where the inquiry was conducted. It is not a case of total lack of inquiry and therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the alternative remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal is not adequate and efficacious as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal does possess only power to stay the recovery of tax, fine, penalty etc. but has no power to stay the proceedings consequent upon the order of remand as in the present case the Commissioner of Income Tax restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is under legal obligation to complete the assessment proceedings in view of section 153 (2A) of the Income Tax Act within a period of one year. Therefore, the submission is that the writ court should exercise its discretion in entertaining the present petition.
(3.) IN reply, the learned counsel for the department submits that the disputed and complicated questions of fact are involved in the present writ petition. These questions can more appropriately be addressed by the statutory forum i.e. the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in the present case being an Appellate Authority. On merits, it was submitted that the findings recorded in the impugned order are well considered findings. Even otherwise also, the petitioner cannot be treated as an aggrieved person as the matter has been restored back to the Assessing Authority to pass a fresh assessment order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There is no concluded assessment and the Assessing Officer has been directed to carry out an appropriate verification and pass a fresh assessment order.;