Revision remains available when the earlier appeal was incompetent, so the revisional bar does not apply.

A revision under section 24(1) of the Gift-tax Act remains maintainable where the earlier appeal against the same order was dismissed as not maintainable. The controlling principle is that an order is treated as having been made the subject of an appeal only if the appeal was competent and heard on merits; where the appeal is withdrawn, incompetent, or barred by limitation, the revisional bar does not apply. The text also applies CBDT clarification under section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act mutatis mutandis to gift-tax proceedings and notes that an order merely giving effect to an appellate order is not itself appealable. The revision was therefore wrongly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision under section 24(1) of the Gift-tax Act is maintainable where the order challenged in revision had earlier been carried in appeal but the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Analysis: The controlling question was whether an order can be said to have been made the subject-matter of an appeal when the appellate forum has dismissed the appeal as incompetent. The Court treated the Central Board of Direct Taxes' clarification under section 264(4)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as applicable mutatis mutandis to Gift-tax proceedings, and noted that where an appeal is withdrawn, incompetent, or barred by limitation, the original order is not treated as having been made the subject of an appeal for the purpose of revisional bar. The Court also relied on the principle that an order merely giving effect to an appellate order and computing tax is not itself appealable, and held that the earlier dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable had attained finality and could not be used collaterally to defeat revision.

Conclusion: The revision petition remained maintainable, and the revisional authority was in error in rejecting it on the ground that the order had been the subject of an appeal.

---