Statutory appeal remains available after unsuccessful revision under income-tax law where no express bar exists.

An unsuccessful revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act does not, by itself, bar an assessee from pursuing the statutory appeal against assessment. The Court held that no express provision in the Act prevents recourse to the appellate remedy after revision, and a restriction on appellate jurisdiction cannot be implied merely because revision was earlier invoked or because the remedies overlap. The existence of more than one statutory remedy does not justify reading into the Act a limitation the Legislature did not enact. Accordingly, the appeal was maintainable and could be entertained notwithstanding the prior revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee, having unsuccessfully invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is barred from filing an appeal against the assessment and whether such an appeal can be entertained notwithstanding the prior revision.

Analysis: The Act contains no express bar preventing an assessee from pursuing the appellate remedy after an unsuccessful revision. A restriction on the appellate power cannot be inferred merely because the revisional jurisdiction is subject to a precondition that appellate jurisdiction should not have been invoked. The availability of more than one statutory remedy does not permit the Court to read into the Act a limitation that the Legislature has not enacted.

Conclusion: The prior invocation and failure of revision under section 264 did not bar the assessee's appeal, and the appellate authority was justified in entertaining it.

---