The assessee challenged the assessment order passed , demand notice and penalty order  before the Bombay High Court. The Revenue raised a preliminary objection that the assessee had already filed appeals before CIT(A), and therefore the writ petition was not maintainable. The assessee argued breach of natural justice and also pointed to attachment of his bank account. The Court held that once the assessee has availed alternate remedy before CIT(A), writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 should not be exercised. However, considering the grievance of bank attachment, the Court directed CIT(A) to dispose of the appeals (both against assessment and penalty orders) within eight weeks. Writ petition was dismissed with these directions. ( WP No. 11536 of 2025, dt. 3-9-2025) (AY. 2021 -22 )