Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. The CIT after having given the permission to change the previous year in exercise of the powers conferred on him under s. 253 of the IT Act, has once again after an interval of three years, made that the very permission granted earlier as the ground for interfering with the order of the ITO who had merely given effect to the permission which the CIT himself has granted earlier on 11th March, 1988, in exercise of his power under s. 263 of the Act. That order dt. 11th March, 1988, bears the caption "Revision Under s. 263 of the IT Act-Change of accounting year". There is no doubt whatsoever that what was approved by that order was the change in the accounting year. It is also made evident in the concluding para of the order where it says that the AO shall pass a fresh order permitting the assessee to change the previous year but, shall impose only such conditions as are legal and are in accordance with law. Thereafter, the ITO made an order imposing the conditions which had not been found fault with by the CIT. It is that order which the successor CIT wanted to revise by initiating proceedings under s. 263. In the notice issued on 6th March, 1991, it is stated in the opening para "As a result of the permission granted for the change in previous year the assessment for 1986-87 has been skipped and there is loss of revenue" The above order is therefore considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." 2. This is clearly an instance of bolting the barn after the horse had run away. The CIT who had given approval for the change of the accounting year earlier, did not consider these consequences as sufficient to deny the approval. Having granted approval that approval cannot be revoked on the ground that the consequences which should have been considered, had not been considered. The successor who considered himself able cannot on that score undo what his predecessor had done. 3. The impugned notice is unsustainable and, therefore, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is dismissed as unnecessary.