Revisional relief under the Income-tax Act cannot be denied on a mistaken assumption that section 273A was the only remedy.

Section 264 revision was held not to be barred merely because relief under section 273A had been available earlier, since section 273A(3) permits such relief only once for one or more assessment years. The court found that the objection to maintainability rested on an incorrect reading of the statutory scheme. Orders rejecting the waiver application and treating the revision as not maintainable were quashed, and the Commissioner was directed to rehear the petitioner's applications, including the interest-related claim, after giving an opportunity of hearing and deciding the matter in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was maintainable in view of the availability of relief under section 273A of the Act. (ii) Whether the orders rejecting the waiver application and treating the revision as not maintainable were liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's application under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was maintainable in view of the availability of relief under section 273A of the Act.

Analysis: The petitioner had previously obtained relief under section 273A for an earlier assessment year. Section 273A(3) permits relief only once, whether the assessment relates to one or more assessment years. On that footing, the Commissioner's view that the petitioner should seek relief under section 273A could not sustain the objection to the revisional application under section 264.

Conclusion: The revision under section 264 was not barred on the ground that relief ought to have been sought under section 273A.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders rejecting the waiver application and treating the revision as not maintainable were liable to be quashed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

Analysis: The earlier orders proceeded on an incomplete appreciation of the statutory position. The interest charged under section 139(8) and the connected applications required reconsideration in accordance with law after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the Commissioner was directed to rehear the petitioner's applications under section 264 in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded to the extent that the impugned orders were set aside, the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, and interim protection was continued pending disposal of the applications.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute itself limits relief under section 273A to one occasion, refusal to entertain a revisional application on the assumption that the assessee must pursue section 273A cannot stand, and the matter must be decided on the correct statutory footing after hearing the assessee.

---