JUDGMENT R.K. Gulati, J.
1. This petition is directed against the assessment orders for the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1981-82 which are all dated March 26, 1993. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed appeals against the above assessment orders which are pending for decision before the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Varanasi. It may be observed that the above assessment orders came to be made in consequence of a common order under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated February 24, 1991, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kanpur, by which he had set aside the assessment orders that had been made earlier for the aforesaid assessment years with the direction to make fresh assessments in the light of the directions contained in the order under Section 263 of the Act. The complaint is that the assessments now made are liable to be quashed inasmuch as there were no justification for the Commissioner of Income-tax (Central) to have set aside the earlier assessments.
2. Now, the revision order under Section 263 of the Act is admittedly appealable before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It seems that no such appeals were filed. The plea taken is that the order under Section 263 of the Act had. not been served on the petitioner and consequently there was no occasion for the petitioner to have filed appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. A copy of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 was placed before us by standing counsel and a copy was served in the court on the petitioner who was present in person. Whether the petitioner was served with a copy of the order under Section 263 in the normal course or not, is essentially a question of fact and there are no pleadings to that effect in the writ petition. Be that as it may, if the petitioner feels aggrieved against the order under Section 263 setting aside the earlier set of assessment orders, it is for him to apply for a certified copy of the order under Section 263 and to have recourse, if so advised, to the appellate forum or such other forum as may be available to him under the law. Suffice it to say that since the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy against the order under Section 263, we do not feel inclined to go into the question whether the order under Section 263 had validly been made or not.
3. In so far as the three assessment orders which are dated March 26, 1993, are concerned, as already stated, the petitioner has not only availed of the alternative remedy by preferring appeals against those orders, but he is actually pursuing the appeals. In this view of the matter, we see no justification to permit the petitioner to abandon the course that he has adopted by filing appeals, and to challenge the assessment orders before this court by means of the present petition. However, we do hope and trust that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Income-tax, Varanasi, before whom the appeals are said to be pending, shall decide the appeals of the petitioner expeditiously at an early date, if possible, within a period of six months a certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority.
4. With the above observations, the writ petition is rejected summarily on the ground of alternative remedy.