JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the respondent no. 1 under section 264 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 [hereinafter referred as the 'Act of 1961'] for the assessment year 2012-13.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the assessment proceedings had been completed against which petitioner had filed a revision under Section 264 of the Act of 1961. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 30.03.2022 rejected the revision on the ground that as the writ petition, filed by the assessee against the order passed initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 143 (3)/147 of the Act of 1961 on 30.03.2019, is pending consideration, in view of the provisions of Section 264 (4) (a) of the Act of 1961, no order can be passed under Section 264 of the Act of 1961.

4. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in the writ petition filed by the assessee no interim order was granted and the writ petition has become in fructuous by efflux of time as reassessment proceedings had already been concluded and assessment order has been passed. He further contends that the writ petition filed by the assessee would not amount to appeal as envisaged under Section 264 (4) (a) of the Act of 1961.

5. Per contra, Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the department, has submitted that as Section 264 (4) (a) of the Act of 1961 is attracted and writ petition is pending before this Court, the Principal Commissioner had rightly proceeded to pass the order and application filed under Section Section 264 of the Act of 1961 cannot be decided.

6. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. Before adverting to decide the issue in hand a cursory glance of Section 264 of the Act of 1961 is necessary for better appreciation of the case, which reads as follows;

"section 264 of the Income Tax Act: 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 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 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 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 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 whic