Sengupta, J. - (1.) The facts of the case are very simple in this matter. The assessee was assessed for the assessment year 1992-93 ex parte on the ground of failure of the assessee to appear in spite of successive notices. So, I do not find any procedural impropriety for taking up this matter ex parte.
(2.) The Assessing Officer had passed an assessment order. An appeal was sought to be preferred and indeed, it was preferred but ultimately it was withdrawn because a revisional application was taken out by the assessee. The order of the revisional authority is precisely under challenge and I think it fit to examine the order of the revisional authority which is sought to be impugned here. The whole question is whether the revisional authority has exercised its jurisdiction properly within the four corners of Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or not.
(3.) I have examined the impugned order of the revisional authority. It appears to me that the revisional authority after having gone through the records was satisfied that the order of the assessing authority was to be upheld, that is, the petitioner defaulted in appearance in spite of notices ; in other words, the petitioner has been termed as a habitual defaulter. It does not appear from the impugned order that he apart from defaulting in appearance pursuant to notices has examined the legality and validity of the order on the materials placed before the Assessing Officer as well as before him.;