V.K.Gupta, J. - (1.) It is on account of a palpable illegal action on the part of the respondents that the petitioners have been driven to this avoidable litigation. The facts in brief are that for the assessment year 1984-85, the petitioners filed their original return on June 27, 1984, declaring total income of Rs. 8,22,400. Subsequently, however, they filed a revised return on November 24, 1986, computing the total loss at Rs. 55,660. The main reason for filing the revised return was on account of the fact that the petitioners claimed to have received an amount of Rs. 8,52,000 as income on cash basis for engineering service rendered by the petitioners and the claim of the petitioners that this income of Rs. 8,52,000 should be included for the assessment year 1983-84, Since the petitioners wanted the inclusion of this income in assessment year 1983-84, they, as noticed above, filed the revised return showing a loss of Rs. 55,660 for the assessment year 1984-85 because the petitioners wanted to exclude the income of Rs. 8,52,000 from the assessment year 1984-85. The Assessing Officer, however, did not agree with the contention of the petitioner and included the aforesaid income of Rs. 8,52,000 in the assessment year 1984-85. The petitioners' appeal against this order was rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal C-Bench, Calcutta, in Appeal No. 2034/Calcutta of 1989 vide its order dated September 16, 1992, set aside the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, but instead of itself deciding the question about the inclusion of the income of Rs. 8,52,000 either in the assessment year 1984-85 or in the assessment year 1983-84, directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue with reference to the documents available and those to be produced by the petitioners before him. Consequent upon the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal, vide order dated September 23, 1985, the Assessing Officer once again came to a conclusion that the income of Rs. 8,52,000 was to be included in the assessment year 1984-85 and accordingly passed an appropriate order.
(2.) The Assessing Officer issued a notice on March 28, 1994, under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act whereby it communicated to the petitioners that he has reasons to believe that income for the assessment year 1983-84 has escaped the assessment and that he wanted to reassess this income for the said assessment year. The petitioners were called upon to deliver the documents, etc., to the Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the impugned order dated March 29, 1996, was passed in terms of Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act including the aforesaid income of Rs. 8,52,000 for the assessment year 1983-84. It is against this order that the petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Undoubtedly, the order impugned in this petition is so patently erroneous and contrary to the well-established principles of law that the maintainability of this petition on the ground of alternative remedy should not be called into question. The order impugned in this petition is so illegal on the very face of it that the petitioners should not be asked to avail of the alternative remedy.;