Judgment 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on a Full Bench decision as reported in [1984] 56 STC 273 (Pat.) (Bhimraj Madanlal V/s. State of Bihar) as also a judgment of the Supreme Court in [1979] 119 ITR 996 (Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax) contends that without independently applying the mind, the assessing officer has simply followed and applied the audit objection to pass the impugned assessment orders. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained. He also objects to the very initiation of the revision of the assessment under section 19. 2. Though opportunities were given, the opposite party has not taken steps to file counter-affidavit. However, learned Government Advocate argued the matter contending that the assessing officer has jurisdiction to pass order under section 19 of the Act and if at all the petitioner has a remedy to file appeal as provided under the Finance Act. 3. We have gone through the orders impugned and we are satisfied that the assessing officer, after giving notice on the basis of audit objection, without applying any more his independent mind to the objection raised has passed the assessment orders and on that ground the assessment orders are liable to be set aside and, accordingly, they are set aside. The assessing officer will give the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard and after hearing the petitioner shall decide the objection to jurisdiction to reopen the assessment and if he is satisfied that he has got jurisdiction then pass orders in accordance with law. 4. This writ application is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Writ petition allowed.