Judgment (1.) THE short point that emerges for consideration in this petition is : "Whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was competent to exercise his jurisdiction under Section 264 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') by entertaining a revision application arising out of an order passed under Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and decide the same on the merits ?" (2.) THE facts, in brief, leading to this petition are as under : THE petitioner-firm, Kanodia Cold Storage, 50-A, Tara Kutir Road, Allahabad, at the relevant period was carrying on cold storage business. For the assessment year 1977-78, besides tax, interest amounting to Rs. 2,790 was also charged under Section 215 of the Act. (3.) AGAINST this, the petitioner-firm moved an application under Rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, for waiver. However, his submission for waiver was turned down. (4.) BEING aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner-firm preferred a revision application invoking the provisions of Section 264 of the Act, but by the impugned order dated March 3, 1981, contained in annexure 5, the Commissioner of Income-tax declined to entertain the revision and dismissed it, inter alia, on the ground that any order passed under the Income-tax Rules is not revisable. The proposition of law in this respect is well-settled that where no appeal lies and provision for revision is there, indeed, revision can certainly be maintainable provided the order under revision is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the authority acted in exercise of the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, or exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or where the authority failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it. (5.) IN the instant case, the Commissioner has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in him under Section 264 of the Act. On the other hand, the revision application is rejected only on the ground that the revision is not maintainable against an order passed under the Income-tax Rules. (6.) A bare reading of Section 264 of the Act shows that it does not exclude a revision application against an order passed under the Rules. The Income-tax Rules framed under the Act have statutory force of law and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed refusing to waive the interest is not an order passed under the Act. The Income-tax Rules framed under the Act have statutory force of law and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed refusing to waive the interest is not an order passed under the Act. (7.) THUS, in our considered opinion, the Commissioner of Income-tax failed to exercise his jurisdiction in entertaining the revision application filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in the eye of law. (8.) FROM the discussion aforesaid, the order impugned dated March 3, 1981, contained in annexure "5", to this petition is quashed and the case is remanded to the Commissioner of Income-tax--respondent No. 1, to decide the petitioner's revision application in accordance with law. With the above direction, this petition is finally disposed of.