Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  the order of the single judge holding that, the assessee having not raised any objection before the assessing authority to the reopening of the assessment under section 147 should be deemed to have acquiesced to it, did not suffer from any infirmity which called for interference. The assessee having not raised any objection before the assessing authority that the expenditure claimed as revenue expenditure was already considered and allowed, and therefore, to have treated it as capital expenditure later was change of opinion on the part of the assessing authority, it could not be raised in writ jurisdiction. When a specific and adequate alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate forum was available to the assessee to take such a plea to find as to whether the expenditure claimed was to be treated as revenue expenditure or capital expenditure, the High Court would not entertain the controversy on its merits. The 1961 Act was a self contained Act and the High Court under section 260A in its appellate jurisdiction was not the proper forum to decide such a mixed question of fact and law. (AY.2011-12)