Wide on the merits, narrow on procedure. He may entertain a claim you never made in the return, he may look at evidence that was not before the officer, he cannot pass an order prejudicial to you, and he must decide by a reasoned order after a hearing. He cannot act where there is no order to revise, and he cannot act at all if the appeal route is open and unwaived or an appeal is pending.
The frame. Section 264 lets the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner revise any order passed by a subordinate authority, on his own motion or on your application. On his own motion he cannot act on an order more than a year old. On your application the period is one year from the date on which the order was communicated to you or the date you otherwise came to know of it, whichever is earlier, and he may admit a late application if satisfied you were prevented by sufficient cause. He must pass his order within one year from the end of the financial year in which the application is made, with exclusions for periods of stay and for time given for hearing. An order declining to interfere is not treated as prejudicial to you.
The fee. The section as reproduced in commentary requires every application by an assessee for revision to be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees. The department's own section page still shows twenty-five rupees, which is the older figure; pay the fee the current form prescribes and keep the challan with the application.
A claim you never made in the return. This is what s.264 is for. In Pramod R. Agrawal v. PCIT the Bombay High Court held that the Commissioner's powers are not limited to correcting the errors of subordinate authorities but extend to errors committed by the assessee, and cover the case where a legitimate claim was not put forward in the return because of an error and is raised for the first time in the s.264 application. The Delhi High Court had taken the same line in Vijay Gupta v. CIT (WP(C) No. 1572 of 2013, 23 March 2016), where the intimation under s.143(1) was held to be an order for the purposes of s.264 and relief was given on a claim the assessee had not made. The TaxGuru note on s.264 records the same proposition from C. Parekh & Co. v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 610.
Evidence that was not before the officer. The Bombay Chartered Accountants' Journal note on revision and additional evidence records Phool Lata Somani v. CIT 276 ITR 216 (Cal), where the Commissioner had rejected an application because the proof of investment had not been filed before the Assessing Officer, and the Court held there was nothing in s.264 restricting the revisional power where the assessee detected the mistake after the assessment was completed. The same note records M. S. Raju v. Dy. CIT 216 CTR (AP) 203 the other way, on the footing that 'record' means the record before the assessing authority. Put the evidence in with the application and explain why it was not filed earlier.
A reasoned order after a hearing. In Pramod R. Agrawal the matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned order after giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing, and the itatonline digest of that case records the same requirement. The TaxGuru note cites Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd v. CWT (1970) 77 ITR 6 in the same context, that the order of the Commissioner should contain the reasons for the conclusions arrived at. A non-speaking rejection is the most common ground on which a s.264 order is set aside in a writ petition, since there is no appeal from it.
What he cannot do. He cannot pass an order prejudicial to you. He cannot act while the time for an appeal has not expired and you have not waived the right of appeal, or while an appeal is pending, or where the order has been made the subject of an appeal - that is s.264(4), and the corpus already carries Aafreen Fatima on the position where no appeal was filed. And he cannot make an order where there is no order to revise: in Alamana Abdul Shaji Ummerkutty v. ITO (WP(C) No. 12516 of 2023, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 400) the Kerala High Court held that the powers conferred on the revisional authority are confined to examining the sustainability of an order that has been passed and do not extend to issuing directions to the assessing authority without reference to any such order - so where a revised return simply lies unprocessed, s.264 is not the remedy.
After the order. There is no statutory appeal against an order under s.264. The remedy is a writ petition, which is why the application itself has to carry the computation, the evidence and the legal ground in full - a writ court will look at what was before the Commissioner.
Section 264 is the only door left when the mistake is in your own return and the appeal window has gone, and it is the door most often shut on a one-line rejection saying the claim was not made in the return. Knowing that the power extends to the assessee's own errors, that fresh evidence may be received, and that reasons must be given, converts that rejection into a writ that succeeds.
The assessment order charges interest under s.215 (or s.217, or s.139(8)). Can I appeal against the interest, and if not, how do I get it reduced?
How wide are the first appellate authority's powers when it disposes of an appeal?
Your appeal is late. How strictly will 'sufficient cause' be read?
The Commissioner dismissed my revision and the officer will not issue a demand notice so I cannot appeal. Is the revisional order beyond the reach of a writ because it is administrative?
I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?
I let the 30 days to appeal my 143(1) intimation lapse. Can I still go to the PCIT under s.264?
My stay application was rejected on the 20% ground while my appeal is pending. Can I go straight to the High Court under Article 226 saying the assessment breached natural justice?
I over-reported income by mistake and the time to file a revised return has gone. Can it be fixed?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.