Commissioner's order upheld under Section 264, highlighting limits on revision powers.

The Court upheld the Commissioner's order under Section 264, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It was determined that as the order under Section 154 was appealable to the Tribunal, the Commissioner lacked the authority to revise it under Section 264(4)(c), emphasizing the limitations on the Commissioner's revision powers. The case involved issues of non-deduction of tax at source, rectification application, appeal procedures, and the Commissioner's jurisdiction to revise orders under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.

---

---

Issues:
1. Non-deduction of tax at source under Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act.
2. Application for rectification under Section 154 of the Act.
3. Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
4. Revision petition under Section 264 of the Act.
5. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to revise orders under Section 264.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner was found not deducting tax at source as required by Section 194-A of the Income Tax Act on interest accruing on deposits made by industrial electricity consumers. Subsequently, summons and a show cause notice were issued, leading to an order under Section 201(1) treating the petitioner as an assessee in default, directing payment of Rs. 23,26,768 towards T.D.S. and interest.

2. The petitioner did not appeal but sought rectification under Section 154, claiming an error on record, which was rejected. An appeal was made to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed it. Instead of a second appeal to the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 264 before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad.

3. Section 264 of the Act allows the Commissioner to revise orders, but sub-clause (c) of clause (4) restricts revision where an appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or the Appellate Tribunal. As the petitioner had the option of a Second Appeal to the Income Tax Tribunal against the Section 154 order, the Commissioner lacked the authority to revise under Section 264(4)(c).

4. The Court found that since the order under Section 154 was appealable to the Tribunal, the Commissioner had no power to revise it. Consequently, the Commissioner's order under Section 264 was upheld, and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Allahabad High Court highlights the issues of non-deduction of tax at source, application for rectification, appeal process, and the limitations on the Commissioner's revision powers under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act.

---