Revision application cannot be rejected only because an appeal remedy exists; merits must be considered.

Rejection of a revision application solely because an appeal remedy was available was held unsustainable, as the authority had not considered the merits of the request under the Income-tax Act. The prior decision of the same High Court on a similar order was relied on, and the revenue did not dispute its applicability. The impugned order was quashed, and the Commissioner was directed to reconsider the revision application on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the revision application under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that an appeal remedy was available, and whether the matter required reconsideration on merits.

Analysis: The rejection was based solely on the availability of an appeal remedy. The petitioner relied on an earlier decision of the same Court involving a similar order, and the revenue did not dispute its applicability. In these circumstances, the impugned order could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The impugned order was quashed and the Commissioner was directed to decide the application under Section 264 on merits in accordance with law.

---