Judgment :- Judgment of Single judge BAKTHIAVATSALM J. (Writ Petition No. 18662 of 1991-6-1992). -Afterhearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the affidavit field in support o the writ petition, I do not think this is a fitof the Constitution of India. Surely, the petitioner has got a right ofappeal under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and bypassingthat remedy, I do not think that this court can permit the petitioner tobypass that remedy. It is true that the order of assessment is of the year1987-88. It does not mean that the petitioner should come straightawayattacking that order of assessment. May be, the petitioner has sufficientgrounds to do so. But the grounds raised by the petitioner are all for the appellate forum to decide and surely it is not for this court to decide.In tax matters, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the assesseeshould not be allowed to bypass the remedy provided under the enact-ment, in this case the Income-tax Act, 19661. It is open to the petitionerto move the appellate authority for the appropriate remdy. The writpetitioner is dismissed. S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, ACTG. C. J. The learned single judge took note of the fact that the petitioner before him, the appellant herein, has got a right of appeal under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In this view, the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant even at the admission stage. This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge Mr. V. Shanmugham, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that his client is one of the partners of a firm which has been dissolved and receivers are there and they preferred an appeal and withdrew it and hence this will disable his client from resorting to the appellate remedy. The other partners are also parties to the present proceedings. We heard different voices from the said partners. Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the fourth respondent, one of the partners, would say that his client, in fact, has preferred an appeal ; but the preferring of the appeal and withdrawal of the same by the receivers will come in the way of his client in prosecuting his appeal. In short, learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent wants to support the cause of the appellant. In contrast, we heard Mr. In short, learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent wants to support the cause of the appellant. In contrast, we heard Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 5, who are also partners of the erstwhile firm, saying that the receivers, even before preferring an appeal, notified all the partners that they could also prefer appeals and seek their remedies, and his clients have preferred appeals and are awaiting disposal of the same, and the preferring of the appeal and the withdrawal of the same by the receivers would not bring in any legal hurdle for the partners to prefer the appeal, if they so choose. Mr. N. V. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, would submit that there is no justification for bypassing the appellate remedy, and all the contentions now raised could be looked into and adjudicated upon by the appellate authorityEven taking note of all that has been pleaded by Mr. V. Shanmugham, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. V. Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent, supporting the cause of the appellant, we do not think we should countenance the appellant bypassing the statutory appellate remedy. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent are only in the field of presumptions and apprehensions that a hurdle will arise with regard to their clients prosecuting the appellate remedy. It is not demonstrated before us that anyone has taken up cudgels against the prosecution of the appellate remedy by any of the partners as on date. On the other hand, respondents Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have admittedly preferred appeals and they are yet to be disposed of. As contended by Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 5, and Mr, N. V. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the first respondent, all the contentions could be examined by the appellate authority, and if the parties are to be aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority, there will be time enough for them to resort to the appropriate process of law available to them. This writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.