Revision application dismissal upheld due to lack of merit and legal basis, petitioner's negligence.

The court upheld the dismissal of the revision application under section 264 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, emphasizing the lack of merit in the petitioner's submissions and failure to establish sufficient cause for non-appearance. The court found that the petitioner's recall application lacked legal basis as there is no provision for recalling orders under section 264. Due to the petitioner's negligence in attending hearings and lack of supporting material, the court dismissed the revision petitions without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment completed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act due to petitioner's non-appearance.
2. Dismissal of revision application under section 264 by the Commissioner of Income Tax.
3. Petitioner's application to recall the order of dismissal.
4. Legal arguments regarding the power to recall exparte orders and the duty of the Commissioner to decide on merits.
5. Lack of sufficient cause for non-appearance of the petitioner.
6. Evaluation of the contents of the recall application and the assessment order.
7. Lack of supporting material before the Commissioner to substantiate grounds raised in the petition under section 264.
8. Dismissal of the revision by the Commissioner in absence of the assessee.
9. Lack of merit in the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.

Analysis:

1. The dispute in this case pertains to the Assessment Year 1998-1999, where the petitioner failed to appear before the Assessing Authority, leading to the completion of assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act.

2. The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order by filing a revision under section 264 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, which was subsequently dismissed due to the petitioner's absence on the fixed date.

3. Subsequently, an application to recall the dismissal order was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed on the grounds that there is no provision under the Income Tax Act for recalling orders passed under section 264.

4. The legal arguments revolved around the power to recall exparte orders and the duty of the Commissioner to decide on merits, with references made to relevant case laws to support both sides of the argument.

5. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the fixed date, as the reasons provided in the recall application were vague and lacked specificity regarding the nature and duration of the illness cited as the cause.

6. The assessment order indicated that the petitioner had been negligent in pursuing the case, as evidenced by repeated failures to appear for hearings, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner did not take the proceedings seriously.

7. Lack of supporting material before the Commissioner to substantiate the grounds raised in the petition under section 264 was noted, which contributed to the dismissal of the revision in the absence of the assessee.

8. The court emphasized that without any material demonstrating the incorrectness of the assessment order, the Commissioner had no option but to dismiss the revision, as there was no basis to conclude that the order was flawed in law or fact.

9. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, leading to the dismissal of both writ petitions without any order as to costs.

---