ABDUL HAQ ANSARI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner-firm by way of this writ petition, has challenged the assessment orders dated January 31, 1989 and August 22, 1989 passed by the Income-tax Officer, Jaipur (the "ITO") and the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur, (the "CIT"), respectively, for the years 1975-76 to 1979-80 on the grounds, inter alia, that the firm's business had been adversely affected due to the money block on the petitioner's account in the U. S. A. to the tune of US $124,122.51 with one A.Q. Ansari to whom the goods were exported in the U. S. A. THE petitioner, in para. 3 of the writ petition, indicated the income of the petitioner's firm for the assessment years 1975-76 to 1979-80 in the following manner : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_558_ITR257_2002Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) DURING the course of hearing, Shri J.K. Singhi, the learned counsel representing the Revenue, has vociferously contended that instead of participating in the proceedings by setting up a defence, if any, available to the petitioner before the competent court, i.e., CJM (EO), Jaipur, the petitioner has come up by way of this writ petition challenging the assessment orders and also imposition of penalties as referred to hereinabove. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contended that the proper course available to the petitioner was that he has first to exhaust the remedy available to him under the Act instead of directly rushing to this court by way of filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.