JUDGMENT S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. - By this writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) has challenged the notice dated 23rd March, 2018, issued by the respondent No. 2 for reopening the assessment for the asst. year 2013-14 as well as an order dated 31st Aug., 2018, rejecting the petitioner''s objections to the reopening of the assessment. 2. It is common ground that The Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) (for short "the Trust") is now governed by an Act of the legislature being Maharashtra Act No. 14 of 2004. It is known as Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004. 3. The petitioner says that the second respondent to this writ petition is the Dy. CIT (Exemptions) (2)(1), Mumbai and is the AO. The return of income filed by the petitioner for the asst. year 2013-14 was filed before him. The third respondent to this petition is the CIT (Exemptions). 4. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that it is a well known religious and charitable trust. It was registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, but now governed by the Act of 2004. It is a mixed purpose trust. The petitioner manages the affairs of this trust at Shirdi. It receives millions of worshippers and devotees every year from all over the world. The petitioner manages and makes provisions for the religious activities and services conducted at the shrine and also for the welfare, protection and convenience of the pilgrims and worshippers at the shrine. It carries on various charitable activities by utilising the donations received at the shrine from devotees and worshippers. These charitable activities include running of educational institutions, hospitals and medical centres free of cost and which are made available to the public at a meagre payment of money. The petitioner has been in existence since 1953. It is registered with the IT authorities and in recognition of the charitable and religious activities of the petitioner, its income has been exempted from tax year after year by taking recourse to sections 11 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the IT-Act). The recognition also is in terms of a certification under section 80G of the Act of 2004. All this enables the devotee, who donates money, to avail deduction. 5. The recognition also is in terms of a certification under section 80G of the Act of 2004. All this enables the devotee, who donates money, to avail deduction. 5. Once the petitioner is squarely and fully covered by section 115BBC(3)(d) of the IT Act, 1961 because it is a religious and charitable institution and the offerings/donations treated as anonymous donations in question have been received without any specific direction, then, there was no warrant in initiating the subject proceedings. The petitioner places reliance upon a view taken by the Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, in the case of Gurudev Siddha Peeth v. Income Tax Officer [reported at (2015) 127 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 180 : (2015) 173 TTJ (Mumbai) 771-Ed.]. They claim that this judgment unequivocally lays down that section 115BBC was enacted only for capturing and taxing unaccounted income which is sought to be laundered and legitimized being shown as donations received by education and medical institutions run by a charitable/religious trust. That is how the petitioner expected the authorities not to question the donations or treat them in any manner, otherwise than in terms of the view taken by the Tribunal. 6. However, a notice was issued to the petitioner seeking to reopen the assessment for the asst. year 2013-14. That notice, copy of which is annexed to the petition, reads as under : Government of India Ministry of Finance-Income-tax Department Office of the Asstt. CIT (Exemption), Circle 2, Mumbai To, Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) 804-B Sai Niketan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Dadar (East) 400014, Maharashtra India PAN AY dated Notice No. AAATS2581C 2013-14 23.03.2018 ITBA/AST/S/148/2017-18/ 1009401885(1) Notice under section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 Sir/Madam/M/s, Whereas I have reasons to believe that your income chargeable to tax for the asst. year 2013-14 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to assess/reassess the income/loss for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form for the said assessment year. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Exemptions Range 2, Mumbai Akhilesh Srivastava Exem, Circle 2, Mumbai." 7. On receipt of this notice and the reasons, based on which the same has been issued, the petitioner raised objections. This notice is being issued after obtaining the necessary satisfaction of the Exemptions Range 2, Mumbai Akhilesh Srivastava Exem, Circle 2, Mumbai." 7. On receipt of this notice and the reasons, based on which the same has been issued, the petitioner raised objections. The objections raised by the petitioner are to the effect that the activities of the trust are known to the authorities. There was never any issue or question, much less a dispute raised by the respondents. 8. The petitioner''s stand was set out in the letter of their chartered accountants M/s Kelkar & Associates. The petitioner pointed out that the AO therefore, could never have doubted the position, factual and legal, as enumerated in the petitioner''s chartered accountant''s letter. There is no basis to infer escapement of income in relation to the assessee, namely, the petitioner. The detailed objections to the notice are, therefore, relied upon to urge that there is a jurisdictional issue raised in this petition. There is no dispute about the facts. According to the petitioner, there is a pure legal issue raised in these proceedings. They would submit that the communication from the IT authorities seeking to reject the objections of the petitioner need not be upheld by relying upon the stand of the respondents. 9. Thus, it is ''urged that there is no satisfaction and as required by law which could be reached on the basis of the assessment carried out. Thus, this is a case of absence of tangible material. The income has not escaped assessment, but there is a mere change of opinion. 10. On such a writ petition, there is a reply filed by the respondents. They deny the contentions of the petitioner. In the affidavit-in-reply the Dy. CIT (respondent No. 2) in categorical terms states that the original return of income for the asst. year 2013-14 was filed by the petitioner on 26th Feb., 2013. A revised return of income was filed on 13th Nov., 2013. The case proceeded under section 143(1) of the IT Act. As the case was not picked up for scrutiny, the AO did not have any occasion to apply his mind to various issues. The AO passed an order for asst. year 2015-16 on 31st Dec., 2017. That order was passed after taking recourse to sub-section (3) of section 143 of the IT Act. As the case was not picked up for scrutiny, the AO did not have any occasion to apply his mind to various issues. The AO passed an order for asst. year 2015-16 on 31st Dec., 2017. That order was passed after taking recourse to sub-section (3) of section 143 of the IT Act. In that order, there is a detailed discussion on Sections 80G and 115BBC of the IT Act in the backdrop of objections of the trust and the decision of the Tribunal''s Nagpur Bench in the case of Shivmandir Devasthan Panch Committee Sansthan us. CIT wherein it was held that the activities of a trust like the petitioner have a bearing on the issue. If they are wholly and substantially of a charitable nature, given the enormous donations received, it can then be subjected to tax. 11. In the present case, the AO came across a annual information return (AIR for short) for asst. year 2013-14 which showed cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 257 crores. A copy of this report is annexed as Exhibit-C to the affidavit-in-reply. On receipt of such an information, the AO examined the records for the asst. year 2013-14 and found that such cash deposits are not offered to tax under section 115BBC of the IT Act. Once the registration under section 80G of the Act shows that the petitioner is a charitable organisation in whose case such an enormous donation is taxable, then, the AO recorded his reasons for the belief that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is in these circumstances that he issued the notice after believing that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment. The reasons were despatched to the Addl. CIT (Exemptions) Range 2, Mumbai, respondent No. 3, who accorded sanction as required by section 151(3) of the IT Act, vide his approval dated 6th March, 2018. That is how the notice under section 148 of the IT Act was issued on 23rd March, 2018 for reopening the assessment. A reference is, therefore, made to all this in the order impugned in this petition and stating to be rejecting the objections. Further, the deponent relies upon the fact that in relation to a similar notice issued by the authorities and served on the petitioner, the petitioner had brought a write petition in this Court. It is stated that the Writ Petn. Further, the deponent relies upon the fact that in relation to a similar notice issued by the authorities and served on the petitioner, the petitioner had brought a write petition in this Court. It is stated that the Writ Petn. No. 395 of 2018 was not entertained by this Court on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to challenge the order seeking to re-assess the alleged escaped income. The petitioner can approach the competent appellate authority, namely, the CIT(A). That is how for the order pertaining to asst. year 2015-16, an-appeal was filed before the CIT(A) and that appeal is pending. In relation to similar proceedings and for the subject asst. year 2013-14, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. Even otherwise, on merits, the arguments canvassed are that there is reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. For all these reasons, it is submitted that the writ petition be dismissed. 12. In support of this writ petition, we have heard Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel and Mr. Anil Singh, learned Addl. Solicitor General in opposition. 13. In the memo of this writ petition itself, the petitioners have not disputed the fact that they were in receipt of a similar notice and seeking to reopen the assessment for the asst. year 2015-16. To challenge the reassessment proceedings/notice and order rejecting the objections to the reopening of that assessment, they filed a writ petition being Writ Petn. No. 295 of 2018 in this Court and a copy of the order passed in that writ petition has been annexed to this writ petition as Exh. E. That order was passed on 9th Feb., 2018. The petitioner had filed its return of income for the asst. year 2015-16 on 30th Sept., 2015 and a revised return of income for that very assessment year on 31st May, 2016. On 31st Dec., 2017, an order was passed, including the moneys received by the petitioner in the hundies maintained in the shrine, as taxable under section 115BBC of the IT Act. The Division Bench of this Court on hearing both sides, held as under : "2. At the very outset, we asked Mr. On 31st Dec., 2017, an order was passed, including the moneys received by the petitioner in the hundies maintained in the shrine, as taxable under section 115BBC of the IT Act. The Division Bench of this Court on hearing both sides, held as under : "2. At the very outset, we asked Mr. Ganesh, the learned senior counsel : appearing for the petitioner as to why should we exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction as an efficacious alternative remedy, by way of an appeal under section 246(A) of the Act to the CIT(A) is available. 3. In response, Mr. Ganesh, the learned senior counsel invited our attention to the impugned order dated 31st Dec., 2017 wherein the anonymous donations received by the petitioner in ''dakshina boxes'' are held to be taxable under section 115BBC of the Act as the exclusion provided in sub-sections (2) thereof would not be available to it. This he submits is contrary to the plain reading of the provision. In support he states the AO has refused to follow binding decision in Gurudev Siddha Peeth v. Income Tax Officer (2015) 127 DTR (Mumbai)(Trib) 180 : (2015) 173 TTJ (Mumbai) 771 : 2015 (59) taxmann.com 400 of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. In the above case it has been held that a mixed purpose trust (both charitable and religious object) would not be hit by section 115BBC of the Act unless the anonymous donations made were accompanied with a specific directions that such donation is for educational and medical institution run by the trust. Besides, two other decisions of the Tribunal have taken the same view. Mr. Ganesh submits that the petitioner trust is a mixed purpose trust as is evident from the regulating Act namely Shri Saibaba Sansthanl Trust (Shirdi) Act, 2004 and the donations made did not carry any specific directions with regard to the user of the donation. Therefore the anonymous donations are excluded from the impact of section 115 BBC of the Act. It is also submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as it ignores not only the binding decision of the Tribunal but also Circular dated 20th Dec., 2006, issued by the CBDT which is in favour oi the petitioner to similar effect as the decision of the Tribunal in its favour. It is also submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as it ignores not only the binding decision of the Tribunal but also Circular dated 20th Dec., 2006, issued by the CBDT which is in favour oi the petitioner to similar effect as the decision of the Tribunal in its favour. It is submitted that the impugned assessment order dated 31st Dec 2017 is firstly contrary to the binding decision of the Tribunal and the circular of CBDT and secondly as it gives rise to a pure question of law i.e., interpretation. In the above circumstances, it is submitted that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and entertain the petition. In support of the above two submissions the petitioner relied upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Aircel Ltd. & Anr. v. CTO & Anr. Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 1055 of 2013 decided on 22nd April 2016, and the decision of this Court in the case of Bank of Baroda v. H.C. Shrivastava (2002) 175 CTR (BOM) 663 : (2002) 256 ITR 385 (BOM). 4. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the Revenue submits that an alternative remedy is available under /he Act. Further, he submits that actual dispute arises as the petitioner had first claimed it is only a religious trust and on being confronted it made a claim of being a mixed purpose trust i.e., religious and charitable. Thus, this issue also requires to be determined. 5. It is axiomatic that our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is plenary. Therefore, there is no bar in our entertaining this petition. However, the Courts have over a period of time evolved unwritten terms/rules to not exercise our discretion to entertain a petition seeking a prerogative writ. One such test to decide not to exercise our discretionary writ jurisdiction is the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy under the statute in which the impugned order is passed. However, we may hasten to add that if we are of the view that the alternate remedy is not efficacious, then we would certainly exercise over jurisdiction. No straitjacket formula can be laid down, it would be decided/determined from case to case. 6. In the present facts, we note that the impugned assessment order dated 31st Dec., 2017 has sought to distinguish the decision relied upon in the present facts. No straitjacket formula can be laid down, it would be decided/determined from case to case. 6. In the present facts, we note that the impugned assessment order dated 31st Dec., 2017 has sought to distinguish the decision relied upon in the present facts. In fact he holds that the trust is not for religious purposes. Therefore will not fall in the exclusion clause under section 115BBC(2) of the Act. This understanding of the nature of the trust not being religious but humanistic, of the AO may be absolutely incorrect as contended by the petitioner. However, there is no reason why it cannot be set right in the appeal under section 246A by the CIT(A). It is an error, if at all within jurisdiction and not an exercise of power outside jurisdiction. 7. The remedy they seek here can be effectively obtained from the appellate authority under the Act. Even if we accept the petitioner''s contention is correct that the impugned order is contrary to the binding decisions of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal and the circular of the CBDT, then the CIT(A) would on examination of the case certainly set it aside. The petitioner could also approach the CIT(A) for a stay of the if impugned order if the same is contrary to binding decisions of the Tribunal. So far the apprehension of recovery proceedings being - commenced, the petitioner can under section 220(6) of the Act approach the eA0 and thereafter the CIT as the administrative head to stay the recovery till the disposal of the appeal by the CIT (A). The application for stay has to be determined in terms of the parameters laid down by this Court in the KEC International Ltd. v. B.R. Balakrishnan & Ors. (2001) 170 CTR (BOM) 415 : (2001) 251 ITR 158 (BOM) . " 14. This Court, therefore, held that the issues raised are not pure questions of law. They are mixed questions. It would not be safe and proper to go into such mixed questions in the limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the more, when the Revenue is seeking to distinguish the views of the Tribunal on facts. Hence, it held that this very petitioner should have challenged the order dated 31st Dec., 2017, by way of an appeal. All the more, when the Revenue is seeking to distinguish the views of the Tribunal on facts. Hence, it held that this very petitioner should have challenged the order dated 31st Dec., 2017, by way of an appeal. It is in these circumstances, though the appeal was delayed, it allowed the petitioner to approach the CIT(A) and until that appeal was filed and, if fled, duly considered and decided in accordance with law, no coercive measures be initiated to recover the amount of tax. 15. The petitioners have also referred to an order passed by this Court on 27th March, 2018 in Writ Petn. No. 939 of 2018 [reported at Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 164 DTR (BOM) 187 : (2018) 302 CTR (BOM) 230-Ed.]. In that writ petition, the petitioner sought to question the method and procedure adopted by the CIT(A) in dealing with their appeal filed under section 246A of the IT Act. There, the grievance was that the CIT(A) having heard the petitioners'' case on merits, decided to take up the stay application and pass an order thereon. That action was impugned on the ground that it is contrary to law. Once again, this Court referred to the petitioners'' challenge to the order dated 31st Dec., 2017 and the prior proceedings before this Court. This Court, after hearing both sides, came to the conclusion that the Revenue should not be overzealous in seeking to enforce its demand and when that is disputed by the assessee. The assessees have undoubtedly i approached the appellate authorities. The appellate authority had not disposed of the appeal finally though detailed arguments on merits were canvassed by both sides before it. In the circumstances, there was no need to set the clock back and which resulted in the officials of the Revenue seeking to enforce the demand. Such a conduct was, therefore, commented upon and this Court, by clarifying that the order on the stay application cannot be sustained, proceeded to set it aside. It directed that its observations should be brought to the notice of the CBDT. 16. Once the petitioners do not dispute that an identical issue is pending before the first appellate authority, namely, the CIT(A), then, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. It is evident that self-same contentions would be raised before the first appellate authority. It directed that its observations should be brought to the notice of the CBDT. 16. Once the petitioners do not dispute that an identical issue is pending before the first appellate authority, namely, the CIT(A), then, we see no reason to entertain this writ petition. It is evident that self-same contentions would be raised before the first appellate authority. It is evident that the first appellate authority would have to deal with them and pass a speaking order, either allowing the appeal or otherwise. In the event that appeal is allowed, the issue would stand concluded in favour of the petitioner. In the event the petitioner''s appeal is dismissed by the first appellate authority, then, the petitioner has an alternate and equally effcacious remedy of approaching the Tribunal. What would hold good for the asst. year 2015-16 would also hold good for the subject proceedings. The only difference is that here the petitioner''s claim to be aggrieved by a notice seeking to reopen the assessment. In their submission, there cannot be any reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Thus, the jurisdictional issue would enable them to approach this Court in writ jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, once the notice seeking to reopen the assessment itself is not tenable in law, then, the petitioners need not be subjected to the regime of fling a return of income and what could be obviated and avoided is reassessment in terms of the powers conferred on the AO by making an assessment order and if that is adverse, the petitioner challenging the same in appellate proceedings. The petitioner cannot be relegated to the remedies as are now stated to be available and in terms of the affdavit of the Revenue. 17. Mr. Ganesh would, therefore, submit that this writ petition cannot be thrown out on the ground of maintainability. This writ petition questions the very notice seeking to reopen the assessment for there is no reason to believe and the objections of the petitioner have been rejected in a perfunctory manner. They merit serious consideration and particularly in the backdrop of the legal provisions. Hence, this is a pure legal issue and we must proceed to entertain the writ petition. 18. Mr. Ganesh has relied upon the Circular issued by the Revenue being Circular No. 14 of 2006, dated 28th Dec., 2006 [(2007) 207 CTR (St) 17\. Mr. They merit serious consideration and particularly in the backdrop of the legal provisions. Hence, this is a pure legal issue and we must proceed to entertain the writ petition. 18. Mr. Ganesh has relied upon the Circular issued by the Revenue being Circular No. 14 of 2006, dated 28th Dec., 2006 [(2007) 207 CTR (St) 17\. Mr. Ganesh also brought to our notice, the view taken by the High Court of Delhi in IT Appeal No. 269 of 2015 decided on 7th Sept., 2015 and the judgment of the High Court reported in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Naraindham Trust (2015) 280 CTR (Del) 335 : (2015) 125 DTR (Del) 177 : (2015) 378 ITR 222 (Del). Mr. Ganesh also places reliance on a judgement rendered by this Court in the case of Director of IT v. Bombay Panjrapole Trust in IT Appeal No. 817 of 2013 decided on 10th March, 2015 [reported at (2015) 126 DTR (BOM) 149-Ed.). Finally, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Jeans Knit (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT in Civil Appeal No. 11189 of 2016 decided on 8th Dec., 2016 [reported at (2017) 291 CTR (SC) 13 : (2017) 145 DTR (SC) 16-Ed.]. Mr. Ganesh would submit that once there is a nondisclosure of prima fact (reasons to believe) then the writ petition cannot be dismissed. The assessee''s writ petition would have to be entertained and this Court must then consider whether there are indeed any reasons for the belief allegedly set out or this is a case of change of opinion. 19. Upon a careful perusal of the writ petition, its annexures and the affidavit-in-reply, we are unable to agree with Mr. Ganesh for more than one reason. 20. It may be that the challenge in this writ petition and in terms of the prayers is to the impugned notice dated 23rd March, 2017 issued by the second respondent. A copy of that notice is annexed to the writ petition and we have already reproduced the contents thereof. 21. Then, the petitioner objected to the re-opening of the assessment by their letter dated 23rd Aug., 2018. These objections have been rejected on 31st Aug., 2018. 22. That order is also under challenge. The AO was of the view that income chargeable to tax for the asst. 21. Then, the petitioner objected to the re-opening of the assessment by their letter dated 23rd Aug., 2018. These objections have been rejected on 31st Aug., 2018. 22. That order is also under challenge. The AO was of the view that income chargeable to tax for the asst. year 2013-14 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act. He, therefore, proposes to reassess the income of that assessment year and, therefore, he requires the petitioner to deliver to him, a return in the prescribed form for the said assessment year. There were objections raised by the petitioner and these objections are also on record. These objections are set out in a written communication of the petitioner''s chartered accountant dated 23rd Aug., 2018, copy of which is at pp. 131 to 135 of the paper book. A careful perusal of these objections leaves us in no manner of doubt that the issue which is falling for consideration and determination in these proceedings is identical to that arising out of the challenge to the order dated 31st Dec., 2017, passed by the AO for the asst, year 201516. That order is challenged in an appeal before the CIT(A) by this very petitioner and the appeal is pending. The stand of the petitioner is common. On merits, it is urged that the petitioner-assessee is a trust or institution established for charitable as well as religious purposes having regard to the provisions of the Act of 2004 by which it is governed. That statute lays down the religious as well as charitable purposes which the assessee is required to fulfil. The very sections to which our attention has been invited by Mr. Ganesh in this writ petition have been relied upon by the assessee''s representative in the pending appeal. The argument is the same and that the provisions of this Act cannot be disregarded. They cannot be disregarded on the ground that the assessee is registered under section 80G of the IT Act. Secondly the enormous donations received by the assessee are not accompanied by any specific direction that the donation is for any university or other educational institutions or any hospital or medical institutions run by the trust. If the assessee fulfils all conditions of sub-section (2) of section 115BBC, that provision would not apply. Thus, there is no escapement of income from tax. If the assessee fulfils all conditions of sub-section (2) of section 115BBC, that provision would not apply. Thus, there is no escapement of income from tax. Then reliance is placed on the view of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Gurudev Siddhapeeth (supra). On 9th Feb., 2018, this Court, while deciding Writ Petn. No. 395 of 2018, made some pertinent observations. 23. We are of the firm opinion that in the event we express any views and either way on the contentions raised by Mr. Ganesh, they may prejudice the case of the petitioner in the pending appeal. Depending upon the view expressed by us, the petitioner would also not be in a position to then assail the notice impugned in this writ petition. They would not, in the event we express any firm opinion, then be able to urge that there is no escapement of income chargeable to tax and every single aspect of the matter was already examined when the AO passed the initial order. Thus, the issue has been examined from year to year and given the fact that the existence of the petitioner is undisputed from 1953 at least. The shrine is well known and throughout the world. It is visited by millions of people and there are donation boxes placed at strategic points in the premises of the trust. There are donations received and the donations do not attract section 115BBC of the Act according to the petitioner. If we do not accept this stand, then, the petitioner''s contentions before the appellate authority in the pending appeal would not survive. In the event we express any opinion that would definitely influence the outcome of the appeal. Once we are of the opinion that the identical issue on merits is being raised in the subject petition, then, examining the legality and validity of the impugned action will not serve any fruitful purpose, all the more when the petitioner has an appellate remedy to which it has taken recourse to for asst. year 2015-16. It has resisted the very action on grounds which are raised in the proceedings before us. In such circumstances, we are really surprised as to why the petitioner is prosecuting this petition. year 2015-16. It has resisted the very action on grounds which are raised in the proceedings before us. In such circumstances, we are really surprised as to why the petitioner is prosecuting this petition. Ordinarily, a party like the petitioner would be well advised not to seek any opinion of this Court on the legality and validity of the subject notice seeking to reopen the assessment for the asst. year 2013-14. However, despite our repeated suggestions, the petitioner''s advocate says that he has no instructions to withdraw the writ petition. 24. It is in these circumstances that we are of the opinion and as above. In the event we say that the notice is legal and valid that may effect the petitioner''s pending appeal. In the event we hold that the notice does not survive and it is not legal and valid, still, the petitioner cannot succeed only on this ground and on merits it will have to satisfy the appellate authority in the pending appeal that the assessment order for the asst, year. 2015-16 needs to be interfered with. Once they have accepted this Court''s verdict and have followed up the matter in appeal, then, we do not see why it should bring a writ petition and allege that no income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. All the more, when they rely upon the very legal provisions and factual aspects which are involved in the pending appeal. This is one more reason why we are disinclined to examine the merits of the rival contentions in the present proceedings. Let the petitioner comply with the requisition in the letters and file a return of income. In the event the reassessment proceedings result in an order adverse to the petitioner, the petitioner is not going to be prejudiced for it can challenge such an order in appeal before the first appellate authority and even if that challenge fails, it can further approach the Tribunal. In the light of these plural remedies and given the nature of the mixed issues involved, we are of the opinion that this writ petition need not be entertained. Any expression of opinion on disputed factual matters would prejudice the case of either side. The issues are not purely legal, but are mixed, namely, of fact and law. In the light of these plural remedies and given the nature of the mixed issues involved, we are of the opinion that this writ petition need not be entertained. Any expression of opinion on disputed factual matters would prejudice the case of either side. The issues are not purely legal, but are mixed, namely, of fact and law. Whether the ingredients of section 115BBC(2) are fulfilled or satisfied will have to be considered in the backdrop of the factual assertions of the petitioner. Similarly, the language of section 80G(5) and section 11 has any bearing on the case will have to be decided in the backdrop of the petitioner''s activities. The petitioner itself is asserting that its activities are mixed. It is a mixed purpose trust. 25. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of by clarifying that this Court has kept open the challenge to be raised in appropriate legal proceedings. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. In the view taken by us, it is not necessary to consider the judgments cited by Mr. Ganesh. The petitioner can rely upon the same in their arguments before the first appellate authority in the pending appeal as also before the AO Needless to clarify that they shall all be considered by the AO while making a speaking order.