Ajay Rastogi, J.
1. At joint request, both these petitions were heard together. These petitions have been filed assailing respective assessments made by assessing authority for the year 2006-07 vide order dt.31/12/2008 (Ann.1).
2. Petitioners have tried to convince this Court that apart from violation of principles of natural justice and reasonable opportunity of hearing being denied by assessing authority while making impugned assessments, even on merits, as well, material on record has not been properly appreciated and impugned assessments made by assessing authority particularly with regard to deemed dividends is not as per requirement of law and without following procedures as provided under law, impugned assessments have been made.
3. Counsel for petitioners-Company submits that there are circulars issued by the respondents giving facilities to the assessee that if the demand under assessment is double the original computed, the same is either stayed pending appeal or appellate authority while exercising powers for grant of interim relief pending appeal may objectively consider the grievance of the assessee; but if it is not granted in the interest of justice that may cause irreparable loss to the assessee and the practice shows that such a discretion is not being judiciously exercised by the authority despite Government's circulars, which has constrained petitioner-Company to approached this Court by way of instant petitions.
4. Counsel further submits that very assessments impugned made by assessing authority since have not been made in accordance with provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act'), are without jurisdiction and that apart, certain pleas raised being not considered by assessing authority has caused prejudice to them.
5. Respondents have entered into a caveat and filed their reply wherein preliminary objection has been raised that statutory remedy of appeal before Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A of IT Act as contained in Chapter XX, is available to petitioners (Assessee); and without availing of statutory remedy, petitioners have rushed to this Court invoking equitable jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution. Counsel for the respondents (Revenue) further submits that proceedings are initiated against respective assessee-petitioner under Section 143(3) of IT Act after procedure as provided under law being followed and after due compliance of principles of naturla justice, the assessing authority has passed order of assessments impugned and as regards question raised with respect to jurisdiction of the authority, Counsel submits that assessing authority is empowered to make assessment under law, if at all, there is an error committed in making assessment or misinterpretation of any provision of law, that would always be considered by appellate authority and all reasonable objections available to petitioners could be raised even with regard to jurisdiction also. Counsel submits that once statutory remedy of appeal is available, ordinarily this Court will not exercise its equitable writ jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. It is true that when alternative remedy under the statute is available against impugned action under challenge, this Court refrains from entertaining petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution. Ordinarily, remedy of appeal is to be exhausted before invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court but alternative remedy as has been held by Apex Court will not to operate as absolute bar at least in three contingencies where (1) writ has been filed for enforcement of any fundamental right or (2) there has been a violation of principles of natural justice or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or (3) vires of the Act is under challenge but the case of present petitioner does not fall within any of exceptions (supra), for which remedy of appeal would be byepassed. In instant case, indisputably, without availing remedy of appeal, petitioners have approached this Court assailing action of the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7. As regards objections raised on merits while assailing order of impugned assessments, the same will certainly be considered by appellate authority. However, this Court finds no justification to entertain instant petitions in view of statutory remedy of appeal available petitioners-Company.
8. At the same time, Counsel for petitioners submits that since limitation for filing appeal as provided under IT Act has expired pendente instant petitions, it would cause prejudice. However, this Court considers it proper to grant two weeks time to the petitioners to file appeals which, if filed, may be considered to be within limitation and for interim relief, if application is filed, it is expected from appellate authority to objectively consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, impugned assessments dt.31/12/08 in case of both the petitioners Company shall be kept in abeyance for four weeks.
9. With the observations (supra), writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.