JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish J.Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “A) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of Respondent No.1 dated 24.03.2023 at Annexure-G and order of Respondent No.2 dated 04.11.2019 at Annexure-A and further be pleased to quash the demand notice issued u/s.156 dated 05.11.2019 at Annexure-B. B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this application, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the recovery of demand arisen in pursuance of issuance of notice u/s.156 of the Act at Annexure-B. C) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any further or other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the interest of justice, and D) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this application with costs against the respondent.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a legal heir and wife of late Rajesh S. Shah who was a Non Resident Indian and settled in United States of America since last 15 years and before that he was working with the Telecom department in India. Late Rajesh S. Shah had left India in the year 2004. It is the case of the petitioner that late Rajesh S. Shah did not have any taxable income in India and therefore, he had not filed return of income for any subsequent years. 5. The petitioner and her late husband had a joint bank account bearing No. 534202010000261 maintained with the Bank of India and also having Bank account with the State Bank of India. In the bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, the petitioner and her late husband had bank deposits which were encashed/withdrawn in the Financial Year 2011-2012 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-2013 when the petitioner along with her late husband visited India to meet her aged father-in-law who was not keeping well at that time. 6. In the bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, the petitioner and her late husband had bank deposits which were encashed/withdrawn in the Financial Year 2011-2012 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-2013 when the petitioner along with her late husband visited India to meet her aged father-in-law who was not keeping well at that time. 6. In the year 2020, the bank account of Late Rajesh Shah was debited with an amount of Rs.11,48,070/- on 12.03.2020 when he was in USA. It is the case of the petitioner that on coming to know about such debit, her late husband had inquired the reason about such debit and came to know that the said amount had been withdrawn by the Income Tax department in pursuance of the assessment order which was received by brother of late Rajesh Shah on 13.03.2020. Meanwhile, late Rajesh Shah was not well and passed away on 17.04.2020. 7. The petitioner on perusal of the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 4.11.2019 came to know that addition of Rs. 18,25,000/- was made by treating the cash deposit of the same amount as unexplained cash deposit under section 69A of the Act and on the basis of said order, a demand of Rs. 11,48,070/- was raised by issuing notice under section 156 of the Act dated 5.11.2019. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and her late husband became aware about such order only on 13.03.2020 when brother of her late husband had collected the said order from the officer of the Income Tax department after the debit of amount from the bank account on 12.03.2020. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could file the revision petition under section 264 of the Act dated 23.02.2022 only on 24.02.2022 before respondent no.1 praying for setting aside the assessment order. 10. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner could file the revision petition under section 264 of the Act dated 23.02.2022 only on 24.02.2022 before respondent no.1 praying for setting aside the assessment order. 10. In pursuance to the revision petition under section 264 of the Act, the petitioner made a detailed written submission to respondent no.1 vide email dated 01.03.2023 followed by another mail dated 01.03.2023 to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Baroda requesting him to provide copies of notices issued to late Rajesh Shah in the proceedings carried out under section 148 of the Act along with proof of service of the said notices to late Shri Rajesh Shah. The petitioner’s tax consultant had also forwarded mail dated 02.03.2023 reiterating the request of supplying of copies of notices along with the proof of service. 11. Respondent no.1 thereafter passed an order under section 264 of the Act dated 24.02.2023 rejecting the revision application preferred by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 4.11.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer. 12. It is the case of the petitioner that since respondent no.2 had not provided the proof of notices served, the petitioner preferred an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 addressing a mail dated 30.03.2023 wherein certain documents including the details/proof of service of notice issued under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2019 along with the email id on which the notices were alleged to have been sent by respondent no.2. 13. The said application was disposed off by passing an order under section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 03.05.2023. 14. The petitioner once again addressed a mail dated 20.06.2023 to the office of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara requesting him to clarify whether any notice was served through affixture at the last known address in the assessment proceeding. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to the said mail, the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Circle 2(1)(1) Vadodara by mail dated 03.07.2023 confirmed that no notice was served through affixture during the course of assessment proceeding. 15. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent no.1, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 16. Learned advocate Mr. 15. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent no.1, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 16. Learned advocate Mr. Manish J. Shah for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the impugned order passed under section 264 of the Act mainly on the ground that the assessment order passed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act dated 4.11.2019 was pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 dated 30.03.2019 which was never served upon the late husband of the petitioner and as such, the entire reassessment proceedings are without jurisdiction in absence of valid service of the notice. 17. In support of his submission, the attention of the Court was invited to the reply given by the respondent on 3.5.2023 under RTI, Act 2005 wherein it is categorically stated that the notice dated 30.03.2019 issued by the respondent was returned unserved. It is also pointed out that the Assessing Officer has falsely stated in the assessment order that notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 29.8.2019 was also served upon the petitioner. Even the notice dated 23.10.2019 and earlier notices which were alleged to have been served through email is also not correct as late husband of the petitioner was never registered with e-filing portal or CPC portal as the petitioner along with her late husband had shifted to USA in the year 2004-2005. 18. It was also pointed out from the order under section 7(1) of the RTI Act dated 3.5.2023 that email-ID of the late husband of the petitioner was not available with the respondent as he was not registered with e-filing portal or CPC portal having no digital footprint. 19. It was further pointed out by learned advocate Mr.Shah that even order dated 3.5.2023 under the RTI Act contained false information with regard to the service of notice through affixture at the last known address of the assessee as it was further clarified pursuant to the query raised by the petitioner in the reply dated 3.7.2023 sent by the respondent that no notices were served by affixture during the assessment proceedings upon the late husband of the petitioner. It was therefore, submitted that without entering into the merits of the matter with regard to alleged cash deposit of Rs.18,25,000/- which is duly explained by the petitioner in the revision application under section 264 of the Act, the entire assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. It was further submitted that the respondent while disposing off the revision application has committed an error in interpretation of the provision of section 264 of the Act by literally interpreting the word “revision” as per the Black’s Law Dictionary whereas as per the provisions of section 264, the Commissioner has ample powers to pass an order as he may think fit. It was therefore, submitted that when the petitioner has explained in detail on merits with regard to source of cash deposit made by her late husband in the year 2011, revisonal authority could not have confirmed the addition by dismissing the revision application. 21. On the other hand learned advocate Mr. Rudram Trivedi submitted that the respondent has passed the impugned order under section 264 of the Act considering the fact that the petitioner has changed her stance in the written submission by submitting that the assessment proceedings are without jurisdiction in absence of service of notice under section 148 instead of praying for setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter back to the Assessing officer to adjudicate the same on merits. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in case of Jindal Metal Co. v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi reported in (2018) 100 taxmann.com. 183 (Delhi). 22. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the following averments made in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents: “15. With reference to paragraph 2.7, the petitioner states about the order u/s 264 of the Act dated 24.03.2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 rejecting the revision application of the petitioner and reiterates some of the grounds due to which the revision application was rejected by the Respondent No.1. No comments are offered in this regard as the order u/s 264 of the Act itself is self-explanatory. 16. No comments are offered in this regard as the order u/s 264 of the Act itself is self-explanatory. 16. With reference to paragraphs 2.8 and 2.9, the petitioner refers to a mail dated 30.03.2023 under which an application under Right to Information Act was filed before the Respondent No.2 and also a mail dated 20.06.2023 addressed to the Respondent No.2 seeking certain documents and clarification. The petitioner also refers to the replies given by the Respondent No.2 and based on the replies given by the Respondent No.2, the petitioner reiterates that the email id of Late Rajesh C Shah was not available with the office of the Income Tax Department and the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2019 issued in his name remained un-served and, therefore, the petitioner preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order passed by the Respondent No.1 u/s 264 of the Act and also the order passed by Respondent No.2. In this regard, it is observed that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on the communication address as registered with the department and as reflecting in ITBA and the service has been made through speed post/registered post, and the despatch numbers are duly indicated on the office copies maintained in office records. If there is change in communication address, the assessee is required to update the same in the department’s records. In this case, the petitioner in her application u/s 264 of the Act has herself stated that they left India in 2004 and have been settled in USA for more than 15 years and after the assessee left India in the year 2004, he did not have any taxable income in India, and hence, he did not file return of income for any subsequent assessment year. Therefore, when the assessee decided to leave India, the assessee who was filing income tax return ought to have informed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer about his communication address, which the assessee failed to do. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that notice was not served on the assessee cannot be acceded to. Therefore, when the assessee decided to leave India, the assessee who was filing income tax return ought to have informed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer about his communication address, which the assessee failed to do. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that notice was not served on the assessee cannot be acceded to. The procedure for service by post is given in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which is mentioned as under: “ Meaning of service by post :- Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Requirements for valid service by post as per aforesaid section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are (i) Proper addressing (ii) Prepaying (iii) Sending by registered post with acknowledgement due.” Further, while considering the effect of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji vs. Palapetty Muhammed and Anr made following observations: “14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. This Court has already held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with a postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or “addressee not in station”, due service has to be presumed [Vide Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh : State of M.P. vs. Hiralal&Ors. And V. Raja Kumari vs. P.Subbarama Naidu &Anr.] .…” In this case, the petitioner has not denied the fact that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Respondent No.2 in the case of the assessee, Shri Rajesh Shah but has claimed that the said notice remained unserved. However, considering the meaning of service by post as given in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the notice was well served on the assessee on the communication address available with the department. Therefore, the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Respondent No.2 is a valid order and accordingly, the order passed u/s 264 of the Act by the Respondent No.1 by giving detailed reasons is not erroneous on law as well as on facts. Therefore, it is requested that the petitioner’s request to quash these orders may kindly be rejected. 15. With reference to paragraph 3(A), the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Respondent No.1 u/s 264 rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner is wholly erroneous in law, as well as, on facts as the Commissioner is free to pass an order as he thinks fit which obviously includes the power of quashing the order or annulling the order and the word ‘as he thinks fit’ is much wider in connotation and includes the power to annul or quash the assessment and that he has misdirected himself on the word ‘revision’ used in the heading of section 264 and conveniently ignored the words ‘as he thinks fit’, which is a part of main provision. The petitioner has filed the petition u/s 264 of the I.T.Act, 1961 which is a beneficial provision, as an order therein cannot be passed which is prejudicial to the assessee. At the same time, the provision is not akin to an appellate matter wherein the jurisdiction or legality of order can be challenged. The Section 264 relates to “revision of other orders’. As per Black’s legal dictionary, “revision” means To review, re-examine for correction; to go over a thing for the purpose of amending, correcting, rearranging, or otherwise improving it; as, to revise statutes, or a judgement. Thus, the power of revision can be exercised to correct, amend or modify the order in respect of which the petition was made. In judicial parlance, the word ‘revision’ cannot mean annulment or quashing of any order. In this case, the petitioner being legal heir of the assessee filed the petition requesting for addition made to the total income of the assessee to be deleted and subsequently, the petitioner contested the legality and jurisdiction of order passed u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act. This goes beyond the scope of the provisions of Section 264 of the Act. Therefore, against the order passed by the Respondent No.2, the petitioner should have filed an appeal under section 246 of the I.T.Act, 1961 before a regular appellate authority for the same but, as can be seen from the record, the assessee has failed to do so. Further, as per the provisions of Section 264 of the I.T.Act, 1961, the Authority concerned, subject to the provisions of this Act, can pass an order, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit. As mentioned above, the power of revision can be exercised to correct, amend or modify the order in respect of which the petition was made. Therefore, the words ‘as he thinks fit’ are meant for correcting, amending or modifying the order in respect of which the petition is made and not for annulment or quashing of any order as claimed by the petitioner. In this case, after considering the facts of the case and material available on record, the Respondent No.1 passed the order u/s 264 of the Act as she thought fit. In this case, after considering the facts of the case and material available on record, the Respondent No.1 passed the order u/s 264 of the Act as she thought fit. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the order passed u/s 264 of the Act by Respondent No.1 is bad in law may not be accepted and the said order may be upheld as valid and correct. 16. With reference to paragraph 3(A.1), the petitioner contends that the notice issued u/s 148 is a jurisdictional notice and the service of the said notice is sine qua non for passing an order u/s 144 or 143 r.w.s. 147 in pursuance of such notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and if the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 remained unserved, in that circumstances, the non-service of jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 becomes fatal to the assessment order passed in pursuance of such notice. In this case, it can be seen that the petitioner has not denied the fact that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Respondent No.2 in the case of the assessee, Shri Rajesh Shah but has claimed that the said notice remained un-served. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on the communication address as registered with the department and as reflecting in ITBA and the service has been made through speed post/registered post, and the despatch numbers are duly indicated on the office copies maintained in office records. If there is change in communication address, the assessee is required to update the same in the department’s records. In this case, the petitioner in her application u/s 264 of the Act has herself stated that they left India in 2004 and have been settled in USA for more than 15 years and after the assessee left India in the year 2004, he did not have any taxable income in India, and hence, he did not file return of income for any subsequent assessment year. Therefore, when the assessee decided to leave India, the assessee who was filing income tax return ought to have informed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer about his communication address, which the assessee failed to do. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that notice was not served on the petition cannot be acceded to. Therefore, when the assessee decided to leave India, the assessee who was filing income tax return ought to have informed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer about his communication address, which the assessee failed to do. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that notice was not served on the petition cannot be acceded to. Considering the meaning of service by post as given in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the preceding paras 2.8 & 2.9, the notice was well served on the petitioner on the communication address available with the department. Therefore, the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Respondent No.2 is a valid order and accordingly, the same may be upheld and the petition filed by the petitioner in this regard may kindly be rejected. 17. With reference to paragraph 3(A.2), the petitioner contends about the information obtained from the Respondent No.2 by filing of an application under Right to Information Act before him and subsequent correspondence made in this regard. The petitioner further contends that it becomes crystal clear on the basis of information obtained from the Respondent No.2 that notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2019 was ever served by any mode of service. In this case, as stated in the preceding paras, it can be seen that the petitioner has not denied the fact that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Respondent No.2 in the case of the assessee, Shri Rajesh Shah but has claimed that the said notice remained un-served. The notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on the communication address as registered with the department and as reflecting in ITBA and the service has been made through speed post/registered post, and the despatch numbers are duly indicated on the office copies maintained in office records. If there is change in communication address, the assessee is required to update the same in the department’s records. In this case, the petitioner in her application u/s 264 of the Act has herself stated that they left India in 2004 and have been settled in USA for more than 15 years and after the assessee left India in the year 2004, he did not have any taxable income in India, and hence, he did not file return of income for any subsequent assessment year. Therefore, when the assessee decided to leave India, the assessee who was filing income tax return ought to have informed the jurisdictional Assessing Officer about his communication address, which the assessee failed to do. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that notice was not served on the petition cannot be acceded to. Considering the meaning of service by post as given in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned in the preceding paras 2.8 & 2.9, the notice was well served on the petitioner on the communication address available with the department. Therefore, the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Respondent No.2 is a valid order and accordingly, the same may be upheld and the petition filed by the petitioner in this regard may kindly be rejected. 18. With reference to paragraph 3(A.3), the petitioner prays to quash the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 dated 04.11.2019 and subsequent order passed u/s 264 dated 24.03.2023 for want of valid service of the jurisdictional notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2019. In this case, as narrated in the preceding paras, notice u/s 148 of the Act during the assessment proceedings has been issued on the communication address as registered with the department and as reflecting in ITBA and the service has been made through speed post/registered post. The petitioner has not denied the fact that notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued by the Respondent No.2 in the case of the assessee, Shri Rajesh Shah but has claimed that the said notice remained un-served. However, as narrated in Para-2.8 & 2.9 above, considering the meaning of service by post as given in section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned therein, the notice was well served on the petitioner on the communication address available with the department. Therefore, the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Respondent No.2 is a valid order. The Respondent No.1 has also passed speaking order u/s 264 of the Act considering the facts of the case. Therefore, these orders may kindly be upheld and the request of the petitioner to quash these orders may kindly be rejected.” 23. Therefore, the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by the Respondent No.2 is a valid order. The Respondent No.1 has also passed speaking order u/s 264 of the Act considering the facts of the case. Therefore, these orders may kindly be upheld and the request of the petitioner to quash these orders may kindly be rejected.” 23. Referring to the above avernments , it was submitted that the petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 24. Considering the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the impugned order passed under section 264 of the Act as well as the orders under section 7(1) of the RTI Act, it is not in dispute that notice under section 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2019 was never served upon late husband of the petitioner. Even notices under section 142(1) of the Act was also not served and the petitioner came to know about the passing of the assessment order only when the bank accounts were put under lien for recovery proceedings. 25. In view of above undisputed facts when the notice under section 148 of the Act was never served upon the petitioner, the Assessing Officer could not have assumed the jurisdiction. The respondent while interpreting the provisions of section 264 has failed to consider the same which reads as under: “264. Revision of other orders. (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. (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 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 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 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 any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any Court shall be excluded. 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 any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any Court 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 the Commissioner.” 26. On bare perusal of section 264 of the Act, the respondent Commissioner of Income Tax has wide powers of considering the assessment order under revision as he may think fit or may make any such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made subject to the provisions of the Act and pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee as he thinks fit, meaning thereby that Commissioner while exercising the jurisdiction under section 264 of the Act, can look into the entire matter and after calling for record of the assessment proceedings under the Act, can make an inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and thereafter subject to the provisions of the Act, pass an order which is not prejudicial to the assessee as he thinks fit. 27. In such circumstances, the interpretation of section 264 of the Act by the respondent is contrary to the provision itself and the impugned order could not have been passed by resorting to such truncated interpretation of section 264 to limit the powers of the Commissioner to revise the order only on the ground of mistake or correction, if any, in the assessment order. 28. In view of above foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. 28. In view of above foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 24.03.2023 passed under section 264 of the Act is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent to pass a fresh denovo order under section 264 of the Act after considering the facts of the case and submissions of the petitioner that the assessment order which was passed on the basis of notice never served upon the late husband of the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 29. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.