Judgment :- Petitioner which is a private limited company is challenging Ext.P6 revisional order of the Commissioner of Income-tax issued under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, refusing to interfere with Ext.P3 issued by the assessing officer overruling petitioner’s objections against reopening of assessments under Section 147 of the Act. 2. The Incometax assessments of the petitioner for the assessment years 1996-97 to 2001-02 completed under Section 143(1) of the Act based on returns filed were reopened by the assessing officer by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act based on information collected from Central Excise, and sales tax departments, pursuant to search conducted by those departments in a group of companies controlled by the petitioner. Even though brief details justifying proposal for assessments under Section 147 were furnished by the assessing officer, petitioner challenged the reopening by filling W.P.31984 of 2003 which led to Ext.P5 judgment wherein this Court gave freedom to the petitioner to file objections to the grounds for reopening of assessments and directed the assessing officer to pass a speaking order on petitioner’s objections. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the assessing officer issued Ext.P3 order wherein he overruled the petitioner’s objections filed against reopening of assessments and proceeded to complete the assessments under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act. Petitioner challenged Ext.P3 in a revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax who rejected it vide Ext.P6 order, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 3. I have heard Sri. V. Ramachandran, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.K.R. Menon, senior counsel appearing for the Income-tax department. 4. Petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in GKN Drive Shafts (India) Ltd. V. I.T.O., (2003) 259 I.T.R. 19 and contended that Ext.P6 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax upholding reopening of assessment vide Ext.P3 order is untenable. However, it is conceded that petitioner has filed statutory appeals against revised assessments completed under Section 147 pursuant to reopening of assessments under Ext.P3 and confirmed vide Ext.P6 order. It is also submitted that the validity of reopening of original assessments is also a ground raised in the appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against revised assessments. However, it is conceded that petitioner has filed statutory appeals against revised assessments completed under Section 147 pursuant to reopening of assessments under Ext.P3 and confirmed vide Ext.P6 order. It is also submitted that the validity of reopening of original assessments is also a ground raised in the appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against revised assessments. The petitioner, probably, filed this Writ Petition on the apprehension that in view of Ext.P6 order of the Commissioner of Income-tax upholding the reopening of assessments, that issue may not be open for decision by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in the course of disposal of appeals filed against revised assessments. In this connection it has to be noted that the Supreme Court had in the very decision cited by the petitioner, above referred, directed the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal which obviously includes challenge against the validity of reopening also. Therefore this apprehension of the petitioner based on which this Writ Petition is filed is out of place. 5. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 has to be based on relevant materials. An assessee is entitled to know the basis of reopening and is free to file objections against reopening and tenability of such objections have to be adjudicated by the assessing officer. This is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court above referred. In fact, if the assessee files return pursuant to notice under Section 148 and along with raises objections against reopening of assessments such objections can be adjudicated in the revised assessment order itself. The remedy against reassessment so completed is to file a statutory appeal covering all aspects against assessment including reopening. However, if the assessee does not choose to file return under Section 148 of the Act but requests for adjudication on the objection on reopening even then status does not contemplate separate contests against the order upholding reopening in revision before the Commissioner of Income-tax and appeal against revised assessment before the Appellate Authority. Therefore it would not be proper for the Commissioner of Income-tax to decide the revision filed against the reopening on merits unless the assessee waives his right of appeal and files revision under Section 264 of the Act against consequent reassessment itself. Therefore it would not be proper for the Commissioner of Income-tax to decide the revision filed against the reopening on merits unless the assessee waives his right of appeal and files revision under Section 264 of the Act against consequent reassessment itself. In other words, even if an order upholding reopening is issued independently, it forms the basis and part of reassessment under Section 147 and it is open to the assessee to challenge the said order in appeal filed against reassessment. 6. In the above view of the matter, petitioner is entitled to contest the validity of reopening of assessments in the appeals filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against reassessments. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is free to go into the validity of reopening of assessments de hors the findings by the Commissioner of Income-tax in Ext.P6 revisional order under Section 264 of the Act. In the circumstances, I decline to go into the merits of the contentions raised against Ext.P6. WPC is disposed of leaving freedom to the petitioner to pursue the remedy in appeals filed before the statutory authority.