P.K.JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Rakesh Ranjan Agarwal, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Ashok Kumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite party.
(2.) BY the present writ petition the petitioner challenges the order dt. 31st Dec., 1999, and prays for quashing the same on the ground that the CIT, Meerut, has wrongly held that the revision was not maintainable. The brief facts appear to be that against the assessment order for the asst. year 1995 96 the petitioner filed an appeal under S. 249 of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act'). He had not deposited the income tax due on income returned by him. Feeling that the appeal shall not be admitted in view of the provisions contained in S. 249(4) he withdrew the appeal and thereafter filed revision under S. 264 of the Act. The CIT dismissed the said revision being not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in S. 264(4)(a) of the Act.
(3.) THE submission of Shri Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that in view of the circular dt. 26th July, 1983, issued by the CIT the appeal which has been withdrawn shall not be treated to have been made the subject of an appeal. Hence, the order passed by the CIT is against the law. Shri Ashok Kumar, has, however, pointed out that the revision has been dismissed under the provisions of S. 264(4)(a) of the Act.;