HOTEL YUVARANI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.

(2.) I heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents also. He points out that against Ext. P7 decision, no revision will lie under Section 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 (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT : [2005]272ITR522(Ker) , it is pointed out: