set off and not in any earlier years. Thus, three orders were passed by the respondent. In so far as the revision petitions filed for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 are concerned, the respondent has passed an order dated 31.03.2005 rejecting the petitioner's revision petitions. This order is impugned in W.P. Nos.4464 and 4465 of 2006. In respect of the revision petition filed for the year 1996-1997, the respondent passed a separate order dated 27.11.2003 holding that the disallowance of setting off of the losses for the assessment year 1996-1997 is only consequential, as the main grievance of the assessee arises for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 19941995 and there is nothing to revise the assessment for the year 1996-1997 under Section 264 of the Act. Thus, the net result is the assessee has been shut out from availing any benefit under the provisions of the Act. In my considered view, the assessee cannot be left remedy-less. In other words, the assessee cannot be wrong on both the counts. The first and foremost issue that the respondent should have considered is as to whether the communication dated 13.08.1996 was received by the petitioner. This communication is stated to be a communication sent by the Assessing Officer to the petitioner stating that the returns for the assessment years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 are defective and accordingly treated as invalid.
