Allowing the appeal against  order of single judge  Mobis India Ltd v. Dy. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 170 (Mad)(HC the division bench held that the reassessments were admittedly made on the basis of audit objections. The audit objection was made primarily on the basis that the dealer and vendor network would not constitute a “commercial right”. The Assessing Officer submitted that the dealer and vendor network was a valuable asset and intangible and it would constitute a “commercial right”. Despite the view being expressed by the Assessing Officer, the audit point was reiterated, stating that the dealer and vendor network would not constitute a commercial right and thus the claim of depreciation could not be accepted. The Assessing Officer without any change in circumstances, proceeded to make the reassessment which was not in “good faith”. The reassessment order for the AY.  2008-09 also suffered from the infirmity of not rendering any finding of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment which would vitiate the proceedings. The proceedings were bad for want of jurisdiction thereby warranting interference. The order of the single judge was not justified and the orders of reassessment for the AY.  2008-09 and 2009-10 passed by the Assessing Officer were not valid. Followed Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT   (1979) 119 ITR 996 (SC).Court also held that  existence of alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for issue of writ.  (AY-2008-09, 2009-10)