Revisional relief cannot be refused merely because a related issue is pending before the Supreme Court where binding precedent already applies.

A revisional authority under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act cannot deny relief merely because a related issue is pending before the Supreme Court when the matter is already covered by binding precedent in the assessee's own case and other applicable decisions. The Delhi HC held that such pendency did not justify withholding relief where the legal position was already concluded for the assessee. The impugned revisional order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, the revision application was allowed, and consequential action was directed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional order under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, declining relief on the ground that the relevant issue was pending consideration before the Supreme Court, was sustainable and whether the assessee was entitled to the relief sought.

Analysis: The application for revision arose from an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2021-22. The matter was already covered by decisions in the assessee's own case and by other binding decisions of the Court. In that background, the mere pendency of a related matter before the Supreme Court could not justify denial of relief when the issue stood concluded by precedent applicable to the assessee.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable and was set aside. The revision application was allowed, and consequential action was directed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority cannot refuse relief solely because a related issue is pending before the Supreme Court when the matter is already covered by binding precedent in the assessee's own case.

---