On appeal against the order of single judge, allowing the appeal the Court held that the Principal Commissioner had committed an error in rejecting the revision petition filed by the assessee under section 264 on the ground that the assessee’s writ petition challenging the assessment order had been dismissed. The single judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that there was no breach of principles of natural justice but not on the merits of the assessment. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner had committed an error in making such observation. The court had also faulted the assessee for having not filed a statutory appeal against the order of the assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246A. The appeal might have been time barred but nevertheless the assessee could not be foreclosed from availing of the revisional remedy under section 264 which was an independent remedy provided to an aggrieved assessee under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the decision was required to be taken by the Principal Commissioner on the merits of the matter in accordance with law. Since the revision petition had been manually presented, the assessee had also to be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing. The order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 264 was set aside and the revision petition was restored to the Principal Commissioner. Consequently, the order passed in the writ petition was also set aside. The court also set aside the rectification of revision order and consequential penalty order. (AY. 2018-19)