IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 25917 of 2002(I) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.RAJASEKHARAN, PROPRIETOR, RIO ENTERPRISES, COCHIN - 682 019 BY ADV. SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-II, DIVISION - II, ERNAKULAM 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.44117/2002 IN O.P.NO.25917/2002 CLOSED. SD/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 07/01/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1)(a) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 17/11/1997 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/02/2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED U/S.264 OF THE INCOME TAX TAX BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08/08/2000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.264 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 14/03/2002 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. \\TRUE COPY// C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O.P.No. 25917 of 2002 (I) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 and P4 which are assessment and order in revision, by the Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner did not appear before the revisional authority when the matter was posted for hearing. The position is not different in this Court also. However, I have heard the Standing Counsel and I have gone through Ext.P4. This is an order under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, whereunder assessment made in terms of Section 44AE of the Income Tax Act is confirmed. Sub Section (6) of the said Section provides for variation of income only if assessee produces evidence to establish it. Since the assessee did not produce any evidence, the Commissioner did not interfere with the assessment order. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner. O.P is therefore dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms