On appeal by the Department allowing the appeal the Court held that the Assessing Officer had clearly stated that there was escapement of assessment and also stated the reasons, pointing out that the assessee had not commenced its business during the year, and therefore, the expenses claimed needed to be capitalised. Mixed question of law and facts, in respect of the reopening of the assessment were to be adjudicated and appreciated by the competent statutory authority contemplated under the Act. The details with regard to scrutiny of materials were all available with the Assessing Officer and so objections in respect of the reasons raised by the assessee had to be discussed only by the statutory authority and the assessee was bound to respond to the Assessing Officer for the purpose of arriving at a just conclusion and taking a decision. In the event of the assessee filing its returns in the prescribed form as called for by the Department and also by submitting all required documents and substantiating its stand and if the Assessing Officer passed the order on such reassessment, and if the Assessing Officer had not considered the submissions raised by the assessee or it assessed the income under wrong head, then, the assessee was entitled to prefer statutory appeal. Therefore, when there was a hierarchy of appeals provided under the statute, the assessee must exhaust the statutory remedies. When there is an alternative statutory remedy, the writ jurisdiction of the court under article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be invoked. (AY. 2009-10)