WP261_20.doc IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.261 OF 2020 Deepak Kochhar Petitioner Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(2) and others Respondents Mr. J. D. Mistry, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Madhur Agarwal i/b. Mr. A. K. Jasani for Petitioner. Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Mr. Pritesh Chatterjee for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 24, 2020 P.C. : Heard Mr. Mistry, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel Revenue for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of impugned assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed by Assessing Officer i.e., respondent No.1 under Section 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly Act hereinafter) read with Section 147 of said Act. 3. assessment pertains to assessment year 2012-13. 4. Mr. Walve, learned standing counsel raises preliminary objection regarding availability of alternative remedy which petitioner has not availed. Therefore, he submits that petitioner may be relegated to forum of alternative remedy. 5. Mr. Mistry has referred to impugned assessment order dated 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 09:33:18 ::: WP261_20.doc 28.12.2019 and submits that sum of Rs.394,46,61,260.00 was added to income of assessee under Section 56(1) of Act as benefit received on account of receipt of share premium by assessee by way of getting control and management of M/s. NRPL during relevant previous year. He submits that this addition was made without any notice to petitioner and without hearing petitioner. That apart, addition is devoid of any deliberation by Assessing Officer leading to such addition. 5.1 He submits that when there is absolute violation of principles of natural justice, question of availing alternative remedy would not arise. However on query by Court, he submits that petitioner is not shying away from contesting this addition and will file appeal as provided under Statute. 6. Mr. Walve submits that it is not correct to say that there is violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as ample opportunity was granted to petitioner. 7. After hearing learned counsel for parties and on due consideration, Court is of view that petitioner may file appeal under Section 246-A of Act before first appellate authority against assessment order dated 28.12.2019 within period of four weeks from today. It is also open to petitioner to file application for stay along with appeal in which event same shall be considered by appellate authority in accordance with law. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. To enable petitioner to avail his remedy as provided under Statute and till such time, application for stay is decided by first appellate authority, assessment order dated 28.12.2019 shall be kept in abeyance. 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 09:33:18 ::: WP261_20.doc 10. Needless to say we have not expressed any opinion on merit and all contentions are kept open. It is also made clear that if appeal order goes against petitioner, same shall also be kept in abeyance for period of two weeks from date of receipt of order to enable petitioner to avail statutory remedy as provided under Act. 11. Writ petition is disposed of. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) (UJJAL BHUYAN, J.) Minal Parab 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 09:33:18 ::: Deepak Kochhar v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 3(2)(2) and other