JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, moved the Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, u/s 264(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, That application was disposed of by the Commissioner by order dated March 31, 1969, The revision application was rejected as being out of time. 2. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the petitioner challenges the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing, but the opposite party No. 1 has not heard him before dismissing the revision application as being barred by limitation. He seeks to rely on the case of Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur and Another, where their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down that the revisional jurisdiction of the Commissioner was a judicial one and the assessee was entitled to a hearing of the revision petition. This court has also taken a similar view in the case of Venilal Dwarkadas Mehta v. Commissioner of Income Tax in O.J.C. No. 324 of 1965 disposed of on August 6, 1969. We would, therefore, quash the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity,of being heard before the same was made, and would direct the Commissioner, opposite party No. 1, to hear the petitioner and dispose of the revision application afresh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we would direct both the parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding, G. K. Misra, C.J. 3. I agree.