K.H. TRADERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an assessee under the Income-tax Act. By exhibit P1, assessment for the year 2000-2001 was completed. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal with an application to condone the delay of 2 years, 10 months and 8 days. It appears that the petition to condone the delay was posted on three occasions and despite notice, the petitioner did not appear before the appellate authority. By order dated March 28, 2007, the appellate authority declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner filed exhibit P2 revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. Along with the revision, the petitioner also filed an application to condone the delay of 4 years, 9 months and 29 days. The revisional authority rejected the revision by exhibit P6 order. In this order, the revisional authority has dealt with the maintainability of the revision, the tenability of the request for, condonation of delay and also the merits of the revision itself. On all these grounds, it has been decided against the petitioner. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents.

(3.) In my view, if the maintainability of the revision is to be upheld, it is unnecessary to examine the correctness of the findings of the revisional authority on the other two issues.