JUDGMENT Bharati Sapru, J. -- Heard Shri S.D. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Amit Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the department. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gorakhpur dated 30.11.2015 by which the respondent no.1 has rejected the revision-petition filed by the petitioner under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on the ground that the petitioner has tried to circumvent the procedure laid down by the law by not filing an appeal under Section 246-A of the Act and has instead resorted the filing of a revision under Section 264 of the Act. 3. The respondent no.1 has come to the conclusion that it was open to the assessee to file an appeal before the CIT(A) and seek necessary relief. Not only that, the authority has also stated that even if the appeal is delayed then it would be open to the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of the Act and on this ground dismissed the revision-petition under Section 264 of the Act. 4. The facts which are necessary are that an order was passed by the authority on 16th March 2015. The petitioner states that notice of the same was given to him by 30th April 2015 and assuming this to be the last date when the notice was given to him the limitation would expire on 30th May 2015. 5. The impugned order records that the petition under Section 264 of the Act invoking Section 264 proviso 4 was filed by the petitioner on 07.07.2015. The one thing which becomes clear is that the limitation had indeed expired when the revision-petition was filed. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue has sought to argue that such being the facts of the case it was always open to the petitioner to invoke the appellate jurisdiction along with an application for delay. The one thing which becomes clear is that the limitation had indeed expired when the revision-petition was filed. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue has sought to argue that such being the facts of the case it was always open to the petitioner to invoke the appellate jurisdiction along with an application for delay. For this purpose he has relied upon a decision of a Kerala High Court in the case of Ouspeh Mather and Company v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin and another reported in (1984) 150 ITR 120 (ker), wherein the Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that since the petitioner has not resorted to the alternative remedy provided by the Act under Section 146 to get the best judgement assessment cancelled, it cannot be said that the Commissioner acted illegally or without jurisdiction or committed any jurisdictional error in passing the order by which he rejected the revision-petition. [Note: - That the provision of Section 146 of the Act which were being considered in the case of Kerala decision has been done away w.e.f 01.04.1989 and do not exists in the statute at all now] 7. Learned counsel for the revenue has also candidly referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Bangalore v. C.I.T, Karnataka reported in (2000) 5 SCC 365 , wherein the Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 264(4) of the Act came to the conclusion that where the legislature intended to make a distinction in certain circumstances there would be no merger in such cases and a revision would be permissible in cases or orders where the issue may not have been the subject-matter of any appeal. 8. In reply to this issue as raised by the revenue, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Mahalakshmi Textil Mills Ltd. Reported in S.T.C (113) 1999 (1) wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraph 6 as under: "As regards the second contention, the section itself contemplates a revision being filed when there was no appeal before the appellate authority. In-fact, sub-section (2) (a) says that a revision could be filed only after the time for appeal against the order had expired. In-fact, sub-section (2) (a) says that a revision could be filed only after the time for appeal against the order had expired. That means, if the assessee had not filed an appeal within the time prescribed therefor, he could invoke the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 32. That is what has been done in the present case by the assessee. The mere fact that he did not invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate authority will not prevent the assessee from invoking the jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Deputy Commissioner." 9. I have heard learned counsel for the both the sides and I have perused the material on record. The facts are clear. The revision-petition was filed on 07.07.2015. The issues which were raised in the revision-petition which is matter on records had not been subject-matter of any appeal. The time for filing an appeal had admittedly expired and the petitioner was thus seeking a revision on the issue of certain additions which has made to his income in the given year. The power to revise under Section 264(4) of the Act, explanation reads as hereunder: "(4) The [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 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 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 the Commissioner (Appeals) or] to the Appellate Tribunal." 10. The power to revise has been granted under the Statute and it cannot be said that there is any bar under the law that such a power may not be invoked unless an appeal is decided. In fact, the statute expressly provides the power of revision in a cases where no appeal has been filed. This fact is not contested by the respondent. In fact, the statute expressly provides the power of revision in a cases where no appeal has been filed. This fact is not contested by the respondent. Such being the case, I am of the opinion that the authority concerned should have decided the revision on merits and in accordance with law rather than seeking to relegate the petitioner to the remedy of an appeal. 11. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Revisional Authority to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. He will do so within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order before him. The certified copy of the order will be placed before the authority within next 15 days. The authority may not allow frivolous adjournments to either side. 12. The impugned order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gorakhpur is set aside. 13. The petition stands disposed of.