Hotel Yuvarani vs Income Tax Officer and Another

K. Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The petitioner is an assesses of Income Tax on the file of the first respondent. The assessment Of Income Tax for the year 2001-02 was completed, as per Ext. P2 proceedings. While so, the first respondent issued a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, proposing to reopen the assessment for the said year. On the request of the petitioner, the reasons for reopening the assessment were furnished by the first respondent, by Ext. P5 communication. The petitioner filed a detailed objection to Ext. P5, as per Ext. P6. The first respondent considered the said objection and rejected the same by Ext. P7. The petitioner filed a revision against Ext.- P7 before the second respondent u/s 264 of the Act. The said revision is Ext. P8. The CIT heard and dismissed the said revision by Ext. P10 order. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P10, on the ground that the petitioner has no other remedy available under law.

I heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents also. He points out that against Ext. P7 decision, no revision will lie u/s 264 of the Act. Therefore, the entire proceedings, which led to passing of Ext. P10, have been taken without competence. If the petitioner has occasion to challenge the revised assessment order, he can challenge the reasoning of the assessment officer contained in Ext. P7 also. The said submission is covered by the decision of this Court in Toja Tyres and Treads Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Another, , it is pointed out:

I am of the view that the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that a revision is not maintainable against Ext. P7 is covered in their favour, by the aforementioned decision. The learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish the said decision. But the principles laid down therein will apply to this case. I am of the view that the revision filed against Ext. P7 was not maintainable and, therefore, the order passed in revision, Ext. P10, is void ah initio. Neither the petitioner nor the appellate authority, at the time of hearing of any appeal filed by the petitioner against the revised assessment, will be bound by it. It is so declared. In other words, if the petitioner files an appeal against the revised assessment, he will be free to canvass against the correctness of the view taken in Exts. P7 and P10. In that event, the appellate authority will consider his contention untrammelled by the observations of the second respondent, contained in Ext. P10.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.