-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Appellate Side WRIT PETITION NO.6831 OF 2006 With WRIT PETITION NO.6833 OF 2006 With WRIT PETITION NO.6834 OF 2006 With WRIT PETITION NO.6835 OF 2006 With WRIT PETITION NO.6836 OF 2006 Nutan Warehousing Co.Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- tax. .. ... Respondent Mr.Atul Jasani for petitioner. Mr.Ashok Kotangale with S.R.Chauhan for respondent. ----- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 16th October 2006 DATED : 16th October 2006 DATED : 16th October 2006 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The assessments of the petitioner’s income for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 were sought to be reopened by issuing a notice under Section 17(1) under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 on 29th March 2006. The reasons for reopening the assessments were communicated to the assessee vide letter dated 11th August 2006. The assessee filed its objections which came to be rejected by the -2- impugned order dated 7th September 2006. The present Petitions have been filed on 9th October 2006 to challenge this rejection of the objections. 3. In the meanwhile, it has so happened that the reopened assessments came to be finalized by an order passed on 20th September 2006. 4. Mr.Jesani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that all these years the income from the warehouses was all throughout considered as the income from business. Now, for the first time, it is being treated as the income from the house property and that is how the impugned order is passed. Mr.Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that whatever be the submissions of the petitioner, the petitioner should file Appeals. In our view, inasmuch as an appropriate remedy under the Statute itself is available, it will be desirable that the petitioner prefers Appeals. 5. Mr.Jesani, on the instructions, states that the petitioner will file Appeals and may not press the present Petitions, provided the -3- petitioner is protected during the pendency of the Appeals. Mr.Kotangale, on the other hand, submits that, at the highest, the petitioner may be protected until its applications for stay are considered by the Appellate Authority. 6. Mr.Jesani has drawn our attention to a few orders wherein the petitioners therein were protected during the penency of such Appeals. We are, however, of the view that it would be sufficient if the petitioner is protected till its applications for the stay are examined and decided by the Appellate Authority. 7. In the circumstances, the present Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. The demand, however, will not be enforced until the applications of the petitioner for stay before the Appellate Authority are considered and decided and for a period of four weeks thereafter. 8. All the Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. We make it clear that this order does not mean any reflection on the merits of the case of the petitioner one way or the other. All contentions of both the parties will be available to them as and when the Appeals and Stay -4- Applications are examined and decided. 9. All the Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)