JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. 1. By filing this writ under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner (assessee) seeks to challenge the notices issued under Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer (R-1) dated May 29, 2001, collectively marked as (annexures P-6 to P-11). 2. The impugned notices relate to the assessment years 1993-94, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition filed by the assessee is whether the Assessing Officer was justified in issuing the impugned notices to petitioner by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 147/148 of the Income-tax Act in relation to assessment year in question ? 4. According to petitioner, on facts pleaded in the writ and keeping in view the back ground of the case relating to the assessee and in particular his assessment as an individual, the impugned notices are bad in law and hence, deserve to be quashed whereas according to Income-tax Department, the notices issued are legal and proper having been issued in conformity with the factual and legal requirement of the twin sections (147 and 148). 5. It is a settled principle of law that jurisdiction of the writ court under article 226/227 of the Constitution of India while examining the legality and correctness of notices issued under any law (as in this case the Income-tax Act) is confined to only jurisdictional issues. In other words, the writ court cannot go into factual aspects of the case for deciding the legality of the impugned notices like an appellate court or as an Assessing Officer unless it is found to be perverse to its extreme. 6. A perusal of the impugned notices (annexures P-6 to P-11) would go to show that they are issued in the name of "M/s. Ram Bharose Land and Finance Company (AOP)". Along with the notice, the reasons as to why need arose to issue the impugned notices are enclosed as (annexure P-12). 7. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner was that since the issue regarding the status of the assessee as to in whose hands the particular income should be taxed is sub judice in appeal before the Tribunal in the case of Mangilal Agrawal (Individual) and, hence, there was no basis for issuing the impugned notices. 8. We find no merit in this submission for quashing the notices. 8. We find no merit in this submission for quashing the notices. In such situation, if it really exists then the Department should proceed to make assessment pursuant to the impugned notices on "protective basis". Depending upon the outcome of the decision that may be rendered, which has bearing over the issue in question, the authorities are always free to pass appropriate orders as is permissible under the Act. Needless to observe, this course, if required and occasion so arises, should be resorted to by the Revenue in this case. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on several authorities such as Aruppukottai Chandra Bus Lines v. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 154 (Mad), HO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC), Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. 170 [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. K. Adinarayana Murty [1967] 65 ITR 607 (SC), Abdul Sattar M. Mokshi v. CIT [1988] 174 ITR 368 (Karn) and CIT v. Ashok Kumar Bharati and Vijay Kumar God [2006] 282 ITR 496 (All) : [2005] 149 Taxman 247 vehemently argued that the impugned notices are without jurisdiction, According to him, they are issued against wrong person, etc. Having examined the notices and the reasons accompanying them, we cannot accept the submission pressed into service. In our view, keeping in view the reasons, the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices. 10. Since we have granted liberty to make the protective assessment pursuant to issuance of the impugned notices in relation to the assessment year in question, we do not wish to burden our conclusions by giving detailed reasons as it would cause prejudice to either parties while proceeding to make assessment and deciding the appeal which is pending before Tribunal. It is also for the reason that the writ court cannot probe in such matters on facts. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this writ. It is, accordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, all interim orders are recalled. The respondent, i.e., the Assessing Officer is directed to proceed to make assessment as observed supra within six months as an outer limit from the date of this order in accordance with law. 12. No costs.