J K SYNTHETICS LIMITED Vs. BAJPAI O S ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an assessment order under the Income-tax Act, 1961,

(2.) THE petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913, having its registered office at Kanpur. THE company owns and runs a mill for the manufacture of synthetic fibre, such as nylon filament yarn, metallic cops, nylon staple fibre, etc. THE accounting year adopted by the company ended on 30th June, each year. It appears that the company wanted to change its accounting year to end on 31st December, each year, instead of 30th June. In other words, the company wanted to adopt the calendar year as its previous year. THE company accordingly on 14th June, 1971, applied to the Income-tax Officer for permission to change the previous year. THE following reasons were stated for the change in its letter dated 14th June, 1971 :

(3.) BEFORE we deal with the contentions on merits we must dispose of a preliminary objection. It is urged that there is a right of appeal against the assessment order and an appeal, in fact, has been filed by the company, which is pending, and, therefore, we should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is, however, not disputed that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. If an order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is without or in excess of jurisdiction or sutlers from a patent error, the existence of an alternative remedy notwithstanding, this court can legitimately interfere. We shall presently show that the impugned assessment order suffers from all the three infirmities. It has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, is in excess of jurisdiction and is palpably erroneous. That apart, Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the company, has made a statement that in case the assessment order is not quashed, he will not press before the appellate authority the grounds raised in this writ petition. In view of this statement, we overrule the preliminary objection.