Dismissing the petition the court held that  the assessee himself had claimed in his return as resident  and it was an admitted position from his own documents filed before the authorities that he had stayed in India during the relevant financial year for 182 days for treating him as resident within the meaning of section 6(1)(a) read with section 2(42). He had not filed any reply to the notice issued under section 148 nor at any point of time had he challenged such notice before the court or filed any application for rectification of the order under section 154 for the assessment made under section 147 / 144 by which the assessee was held “resident” or an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the order. The assessee had invoked the provision of revision under section 264, the scope of which was much narrower than the appeal. Circulars and notifications upon which the assessee relied were in conflict with section 6(1) and if there was a conflict between a circular or notification and an Act the Act would prevail. The order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 264 confirming the order of assessment under section 147 / 144 treating the assessee as resident was held to be valid. (AY. 2004-05)