CHAPTER XX — APPEALS AND REVISION | E.—Revision by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner
CHAPTER XX — APPEALS AND REVISION | E.—Revision by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner
Section 264 — Revision of Other Orders
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live. The Commissioner's revisional power, on the assessee's application or suo motu, to revise any order (other than one to which section 263 applies) in a manner not prejudicial to the assessee.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment. The Finance Act, 2026 does not touch section 264.
Nature / mechanism: An assessee-friendly revisional remedy: the Commissioner may grant relief against an order even where no appeal was filed, subject to limitation, the bar in sub-section (4), and the rule that revision cannot be to the assessee's prejudice.
Litigation profile: Well litigated — the breadth and duty to exercise the power, relief for the assessee's own mistakes, the section 264(4) bar, and amenability to writ.
A. COMMENTARY
A wide, equitable power to do justice to the assessee
Section 264 empowers the Commissioner to revise any order (not covered by section 263) either on his own motion within one year, or on the assessee's application within one year of communication of the order (condonable for sufficient cause). Crucially, the power is not confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and is wide enough to grant relief the assessee failed to claim — including relief from an over-assessment caused by the assessee's own mistake in the return (C. Parikh & Co.). The revision may not be prejudicial to the assessee.
A duty to deal, exercised judicially; writ review
The Commissioner is under a public duty not merely to entertain but to dispose of a section 264 application in accordance with law after a reasonable opportunity, the discretion being judicial (Dwarka Nath). An order under section 264 — including a refusal to revise — is amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where it is unjust or illegal.
The Commissioner cannot revise under section 264 where the time for appeal has not expired and the assessee has not waived the right of appeal, or where the order is pending or has been the subject of an appeal to the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The remedy is alternative to appeal, not cumulative — an assessee must choose his forum.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)
Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025); the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to this section. Inline numerals in square brackets are the bare Act's amendment-footnote markers.
Revision of other orders.
264. (1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit.
(2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall not of his own motion revise any order under this section if the order has been made more than one year previously.
(3) In the case of an application for revision under this section by the assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier :
Provided that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, admit an application made after the expiry of that period.
(4) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall not revise any order under this section in the following cases—
(a) where an appeal against the order lies to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or to 87[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal but has not been made and the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or, in the case of an appeal to 87[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal; or
(b) where the order is pending on an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals); or
(c) where the order has been made the subject of an appeal to 87[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal.
(5) Every application by an assessee for revision under this section shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees.
(6) On every application by an assessee for revision under this sub-section, made on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, an order shall be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which such application is made by the assessee for revision.
Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this sub-section, the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129 and 88[the period commencing on the date on which stay on any proceeding under this section was granted by an order or injunction of any court and ending on the date on which certified copy of the order vacating the stay was received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] shall be excluded.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), an order in revision under sub-section (6) may be passed at any time in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Explanation 1.—An order by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner declining to interfere shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) shall be deemed to be an authority subordinate to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. injunction of any court" by Act No. 7 of 2025, w.e.f. 1-4-2025.
C. AUTHORITIES
The authorities establish the breadth of the power, relief for the assessee's own errors, the duty to decide judicially, and writ review.
Cluster 1 — Breadth of the power and the duty to exercise it
Dwarka Nath v. ITO, (1965) 57 ITR 349 (SC)
Holding The revisional authority is under a public duty to entertain and decide a revision application judicially after a reasonable opportunity; an order refusing relief is amenable to certiorari under Article 226.
Relevance The leading authority on the nature of the section 264 power and its judicial review.
C. Parikh & Co. v. CIT, (1980) 122 ITR 610 (All)
Holding Under section 264 the Commissioner has power to grant relief to the assessee even in respect of an over-assessment resulting from the assessee's own mistake in the return; the power is wide and is to be used to ensure the assessee pays only the tax legally due.
Relevance Establishes relief for the assessee's own bona fide errors through section 264.
Cluster 2 — Limits: non-prejudice and the section 264(4) bar
Position (statutory) — non-prejudice and choice of forum
Position A section 264 revision cannot be to the assessee's prejudice; and section 264(4) bars revision where an appeal lies and is not waived, or where the order is/has been in appeal — the assessee must elect between appeal and revision.
Caution Stated from sub-sections (3) and (4); verify limitation and waiver on the facts.
Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)
Relevance Read with section 264, supports the view that an assessee shut out from making a claim before the AO retains avenues — appeal or revision — to have the correct tax determined; section 264 is a recognised such avenue.
CHAPTER XX — APPEALS AND REVISION | E.—Revision by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner
Section 264 — Revision of Other Orders
Case Laws & Commentary — Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2026) — bharattax.co Treatise
Status: Live. The Commissioner's revisional power, on the assessee's application or suo motu, to revise any order (other than one to which section 263 applies) in a manner not prejudicial to the assessee.
Finance Act, 2026: No amendment. The Finance Act, 2026 does not touch section 264.
Nature / mechanism: An assessee-friendly revisional remedy: the Commissioner may grant relief against an order even where no appeal was filed, subject to limitation, the bar in sub-section (4), and the rule that revision cannot be to the assessee's prejudice.
Litigation profile: Well litigated — the breadth and duty to exercise the power, relief for the assessee's own mistakes, the section 264(4) bar, and amenability to writ.
A. COMMENTARY
A wide, equitable power to do justice to the assessee
Section 264 empowers the Commissioner to revise any order (not covered by section 263) either on his own motion within one year, or on the assessee's application within one year of communication of the order (condonable for sufficient cause). Crucially, the power is not confined to errors apparent on the face of the record and is wide enough to grant relief the assessee failed to claim — including relief from an over-assessment caused by the assessee's own mistake in the return (C. Parikh & Co.). The revision may not be prejudicial to the assessee.
A duty to deal, exercised judicially; writ review
The Commissioner is under a public duty not merely to entertain but to dispose of a section 264 application in accordance with law after a reasonable opportunity, the discretion being judicial (Dwarka Nath). An order under section 264 — including a refusal to revise — is amenable to the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where it is unjust or illegal.
The section 264(4) bar
The Commissioner cannot revise under section 264 where the time for appeal has not expired and the assessee has not waived the right of appeal, or where the order is pending or has been the subject of an appeal to the CIT(A)/Tribunal. The remedy is alternative to appeal, not cumulative — an assessee must choose his forum.
B. STATUTORY TEXT (verbatim)
Reproduced verbatim from the Income-tax Act, 1961 (as amended up to the Finance Act, 2025); the Finance Act, 2026 makes no change to this section. Inline numerals in square brackets are the bare Act's amendment-footnote markers.
Revision of other orders.
264. (1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit.
(2) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall not of his own motion revise any order under this section if the order has been made more than one year previously.
(3) In the case of an application for revision under this section by the assessee, the application must be made within one year from the date on which the order in question was communicated to him or the date on which he otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier :
Provided that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he is satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period, admit an application made after the expiry of that period.
(4) The Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall not revise any order under this section in the following cases—
(a) where an appeal against the order lies to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) or to 87[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal but has not been made and the time within which such appeal may be made has not expired, or, in the case of an appeal to 87[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal, the assessee has not waived his right of appeal; or
(b) where the order is pending on an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals); or
(c) where the order has been made the subject of an appeal to 87[the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or] the Commissioner (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal.
(5) Every application by an assessee for revision under this section shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees.
(6) On every application by an assessee for revision under this sub-section, made on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, an order shall be passed within one year from the end of the financial year in which such application is made by the assessee for revision.
Explanation.—In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this sub-section, the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be re-heard under the proviso to section 129 and 88[the period commencing on the date on which stay on any proceeding under this section was granted by an order or injunction of any court and ending on the date on which certified copy of the order vacating the stay was received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner] shall be excluded.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6), an order in revision under sub-section (6) may be passed at any time in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court.
Explanation 1.—An order by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner declining to interfere shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed not to be an order prejudicial to the assessee.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) shall be deemed to be an authority subordinate to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. injunction of any court" by Act No. 7 of 2025, w.e.f. 1-4-2025.
C. AUTHORITIES
The authorities establish the breadth of the power, relief for the assessee's own errors, the duty to decide judicially, and writ review.
Cluster 1 — Breadth of the power and the duty to exercise it
Dwarka Nath v. ITO, (1965) 57 ITR 349 (SC)
Holding The revisional authority is under a public duty to entertain and decide a revision application judicially after a reasonable opportunity; an order refusing relief is amenable to certiorari under Article 226.
Relevance The leading authority on the nature of the section 264 power and its judicial review.
C. Parikh & Co. v. CIT, (1980) 122 ITR 610 (All)
Holding Under section 264 the Commissioner has power to grant relief to the assessee even in respect of an over-assessment resulting from the assessee's own mistake in the return; the power is wide and is to be used to ensure the assessee pays only the tax legally due.
Relevance Establishes relief for the assessee's own bona fide errors through section 264.
Cluster 2 — Limits: non-prejudice and the section 264(4) bar
Position (statutory) — non-prejudice and choice of forum
Position A section 264 revision cannot be to the assessee's prejudice; and section 264(4) bars revision where an appeal lies and is not waived, or where the order is/has been in appeal — the assessee must elect between appeal and revision.
Caution Stated from sub-sections (3) and (4); verify limitation and waiver on the facts.
Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT, (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC)
Relevance Read with section 264, supports the view that an assessee shut out from making a claim before the AO retains avenues — appeal or revision — to have the correct tax determined; section 264 is a recognised such avenue.