Section 264 revision bar does not prevent a section 246A appeal; appellate jurisdiction remains intact.

A revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act does not bar an appeal under section 246A, because the embargo in section 264(4)(c) applies only within revision proceedings and does not curtail appellate jurisdiction. On that basis, the appellate authority was justified in entertaining the assessee's appeal despite the pending revision on the same matter. The Revenue raised no separate challenge on the merits of the appellate findings, so its objection failed and the maintainability of the appeal was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in entertaining the assessee's appeal despite a revision petition under section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning the same matter, and whether the bar in section 264(4)(c) extended to an appeal under section 246A.

Analysis: Section 264 places a restriction on revision where the relevant item is the subject matter of an appeal before the CIT(A), but that restriction operates in the revisionary field. No corresponding embargo is created by section 246A against entertainment of an appeal. The Revenue did not advance any separate challenge on the merits of the appellate findings.

Conclusion: The appeal was validly entertained by the appellate authority, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The common order affirmed the maintainability of the assessee's appeal and left the Revenue without merit, resulting in dismissal of both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A revision petition under section 264 does not bar an appeal under section 246A, because the statutory embargo in section 264(4)(c) is confined to revision proceedings and does not curtail appellate jurisdiction.

---