The assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) against the assessment order within the time specified under the provisions of section 249 . The assessee subsequently without withdrawing the appeal filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) filed a revision application under section 264 to the Commissioner within the time specified under section 264 . The Commissioner under section 264 dismissed the application. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable without adjudicating the issue raised before him on the merits. On appeal the Tribunal held that the conditions specified under clause (c) of section 264 were applicable. Clause (c) restricts the power of the Commissioner to revise the order if any appeal has been preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals). Undisputedly, in the present case the appeal had already been preferred to the Commissioner (Appeals). Thus the order passed by the Commissioner under section 264 was against the provisions of law. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside and he was directed to admit the appeal filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with the provisions of law on the merits. The assessee shall co-operate during the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) and file the necessary supporting documents in support of its contention. The assessee was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000 to the Income-tax office before the commencement of the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) for its negligent approach . CIT v. Eurasia Publishing House (P) Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 381 (Delhi) (HC) distinguished. ( AY.2005-06)