(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the assessment order dated March 23, 1990, and the notice of demand in consequence thereto. The assessment relates to the assessment year 1980 -81 and the petitioner has been assessed by the said assessment as a protective measure. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the matter was remanded for fresh assessment to the Income -tax Officer concerned by the appellate authority with the direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to cross -examine certain witnesses. The assessment order recites that, in spite of repeated opportunities, the petitioner refused to avail of the same and, ultimately, he came out with a case that he did not want to cross -examine any person. These factual findings of fact recorded in the assessment order are being disputed in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, no such opportunity was ever afforded to him and he had never refused to cross -examine the witnesses. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to go into this factual controversy because, against the assessment order, the petitioner has, admittedly, a statutory remedy available to him and to approach the appellate authority in order to seek redress of his grievance. The questions whether such opportunity was afforded to the petitioner or not and whether the same was adequate are questions that can appropriately be decided by the appellate authority, if the petitioner decides to file an appeal against the assessment order. It is needless to say that the appellate authority itself is entitled to give an opportunity to the petitioner if it finds that the opportunity granted to the petitioner was not adequate or that the circumstances of the case warrant that the petitioner should be given another opportunity. In this view of the matter, we reject this writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy without going into the merits of the case.
(2.) CONSEQUENTLY , the writ petition is rejected summarily.