Merger doctrine limits revisional power: Commissioner could not revisit a matter after Tribunal dismissal on limitation.

Once the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order merged in the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal as time-barred, revisional jurisdiction under section 264 was barred by section 264(4). The Commissioner therefore could not reopen the same matter or grant a fresh hearing on merits, and the revisional order was without jurisdiction and void ab initio. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's view and answered the reference against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could validly exercise revisional power under section 264 after the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order had merged in the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on limitation, and whether the revisional order was therefore void.

Analysis: The appeal against the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order had already been dismissed by the Tribunal as time-barred. Once that dismissal occurred, the earlier appellate order merged in the Tribunal's order. In such a situation, section 264(4) barred the Commissioner from revising the same matter. The revisional order was passed without jurisdiction and could not sustain a fresh rehearing of the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no authority under section 264 to interfere, and the revisional order was void ab initio.

Final Conclusion: The legal effect of the decision is that the Tribunal's view was upheld and the reference was answered against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Once an appellate order has merged in a Tribunal's order, revisional jurisdiction under section 264 is excluded by the statutory bar in section 264(4).

---