Jharkhand HC Rules Section 264 Revision Maintainable After Expiry of Appeal Limitation Period

Case Overview

Case Name: Sri Kaushik Narayan Bhattacharya Son of Krishnendu Narayan Bhattacharya Vs PCIT (Jharkhand High Court)
Appeal Number: W.P.(T) No. 5992 of 2026
Date of Order: 11/08/2026
Court: Jharkhand High Court

Background and Context

The Jharkhand High Court recently delivered a significant ruling clarifying the scope and maintainability of revision petitions filed under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment addresses a fundamental jurisdictional question — whether the bar prescribed under Section 264(4)(a) continues to operate even after the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal against an assessment order has lapsed.

The Court set aside an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revisional Authority) dated 14.03.2024, which had dismissed a revision petition as not maintainable. Notably, the Revisional Authority had also ventured into the merits of the matter despite having concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision — a procedural anomaly that the High Court expressly disapproved.

The central question before the Jharkhand High Court involved two distinct but closely connected legal points:

  1. Whether a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 remains maintainable when the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal against the underlying assessment order has already expired and no appeal or condonation application has been filed by the assessee.

  2. Whether a Revisional Authority, upon concluding that it lacks jurisdiction, can still proceed to make observations on the substantive merits of the case.

Both questions carry substantial practical implications for assessees who, for various reasons, choose the revisional route under Section 264 rather than pursuing an appellate remedy.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed a revision petition challenging an assessment order dated 26 December 2022, which had been passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revision was filed before the Revisional Authority in the exercise of powers vested under Section 264.

The Revisional Authority, vide its order dated 14 March 2024, rejected the revision petition on the ground that the assessee had a statutory remedy of appeal available against the said assessment order and had bypassed that remedy in favour of invoking Section 264. The Revisional Authority treated this as a sufficient basis to hold the revision non-maintainable.

Simultaneously — and contradictorily — the Revisional Authority also proceeded to make certain observations touching upon the merits of the assessment, despite having concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision in the first place.

Aggrieved by this order, the assessee approached the Jharkhand High Court by way of a writ petition.

Arguments Advanced

On Behalf of the Assessee

The assessee's counsel submitted that: