Court dismisses revision petition under Income-tax Act, citing non-maintainability & clarifying appeal distinctions.

The court upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax's decision that the revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act was not maintainable. The petitioner's challenge, based on a circular indicating that a withdrawn appeal should not be considered as made the subject of an appeal, was dismissed. The court emphasized the distinctions between sections 249 and 264(4)(a) of the Act, ultimately finding the petition lacking merit and dismissing it.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Income-tax on maintainability of revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dated December 31, 1999, where the Commissioner of Income-tax held that the revision was not maintainable under section 264 of the Income-tax Act. The petitioner had initially filed an appeal under section 249 of the Act for the assessment year 1995-96 without depositing the income tax due, later withdrawing the appeal and filing a revision under section 264. The Commissioner dismissed the revision as not maintainable under section 264(4)(a) of the Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that a circular issued by the Commissioner indicated that a withdrawn appeal should not be treated as made the subject of an appeal, challenging the Commissioner's decision. However, the standing counsel pointed out that the revision was dismissed under the provisions of section 264(4)(a) of the Act.

The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Income-tax Act, specifically section 249(4) and section 264(4)(a). Section 249(4) outlines conditions for admitting an appeal, requiring the tax due on the income returned to be paid. On the other hand, section 264(4)(a) bars revision in certain circumstances, including when an appeal against the order lies but has not been made or the time for appeal has not expired, or if the assessee has not waived the right of appeal. The court noted that the withdrawal of the appeal meant that the assessment order was not the subject of appeal, distinguishing it from section 264(4)(c) which applies when the order has been made the subject of an appeal. The court emphasized the distinction in language between sections 249 and 264(4)(a), clarifying that the appealability of the order is not negated by the conditions in section 249(4)(a). In this case, the conditions of section 264(4)(a) were met, leading to the dismissal of the revision as not maintainable.

Ultimately, the court found the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it, upholding the Commissioner's decision regarding the maintainability of the revision under section 264 of the Income-tax Act.

---