JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
Prayer clause (a) in the writ petition seeks a writ of prohibition restraining respondent No. 1 from making a de novo assessment but without referring to the order pursuant to which the de novo assessment is being made.
Prayer clause (b) is for a Writ of certiorari quashing the order dated February 14, 1995, made under section 144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”), by respondent No. 3 and quashing the notice dated December 23, 1994, along with its questionnaire under section 142(1) of the Act and notices under section 143(2) dated July 7, 1994, and October 7, 1994, relating to the assessment year 1989-90 since they relate to the issues already determined in the previous assessment years.
Reverting to the substantive prayer in clause (b), a reference to annexure “P-8” is relevant because it is dated February 13, 1995, which probably is referred to in the prayer clause (b) as dated February 14, 1995. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, has no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment which was concluded earlier. He urged that the appeal against the assessment order dated March 30, 1992, annexure “P-2”, was restricted to a few items only as set out in the grounds of appeal, annexure “P-3”. Even before the appellate authority very limited contentions were reiterated, but the appellate authority, vide its order dated January 7, 1993, annexure “P-4”, has set aside the assessment and directed a fresh assessment. The order of the appellate authority reads thus :
“Therefore, in the circumstances, I have no other alternative but to set aside the assessment with the directions that proper enquiries may be made and the assessee may be confronted with the material intended to be relied upon before arriving at any adverse finding to the interest of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment may be framed afresh as per the provisions of law.”
The above order is final between the parties. It is pursuant to this order that the assessing authority passed the impugned order on February 14, 1995, which is referred to in prayer clause (b) (see annexure “P-8”).
Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged that the assessing authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated February 13, 1995 (February 14, 1995) (annexure “P-8”), and if this be so, the petitioner is justified in coming to this court under article 226 of the Constitution. He urged that the order of the appellate authority dated January 7, 1993, annexure “P-4”, is being misconstrued by the assessing authority and it has erroneously on such misconstruction of the said order passed the impugned order dated February 14, 1995, annexure “P-8”.
After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that we need not interfere with the impugned order dated February 14, 1995, annexure “P-8”, at this stage and it would be open to the petitioner to raise all these contentions not only before the assessing authority but also before the appropriate higher forums.
Writ petition to stand summarily rejected.