Suo motu revision remains available where an appeal is summarily rejected for defects, and merger does not apply.

A summary rejection of an appeal for procedural defects does not amount to an appellate order on merits, so the doctrine of merger does not apply and the bar on revising appellate orders does not prevent suo motu revision of the original assessment. The Commissioner may therefore revise the assessment orders under section 23(4) read with rule 80 where the appeal was dismissed at the filing stage under rule 49 for an unrectified defective memorandum. The record also showed that the assessee received notice of the proposed revision, the grounds were communicated, written submissions were considered, and counsel appeared at the hearing, so a reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could exercise suo motu revision under section 23(4) read with rule 80 when the assessee's appeals against the assessment orders had been summarily rejected under rule 49 for defects; (ii) Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could exercise suo motu revision under section 23(4) read with rule 80 when the assessee's appeals against the assessment orders had been summarily rejected under rule 49 for defects.

Analysis: The revision notices sought to revise the original assessment orders. Although appeals had been filed, they were rejected at the threshold under rule 49(1) because the memorandum was defective and the defects were not cured. Such a rejection occurs before the appeal is taken up for consideration on merits and does not amount to an appellate order in the full sense. The doctrine of merger applies only where the appellate authority has applied its mind to the order or the issues arising in appeal. Rule 80 bars revision of appellate orders, but that bar is directed to orders passed after appellate consideration, not to summary rejection at the filing stage.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the assessment orders under section 23(4) read with rule 80, and the summary rejection of the appeals did not prevent such revision.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the Commissioner.

Analysis: The assessee was served with the notice of proposed revision, the reasons were communicated, written submissions were filed and considered, and the assessee appeared through counsel at the hearing. Nothing showed that further time was sought or refused. The record disclosed a fair opportunity to meet the proposed revision.

Conclusion: A reasonable opportunity of hearing was afforded, and the challenge on this ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's quashing of the revisional orders was unsustainable, and the revisional orders restoring the tax demand stood upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A summary rejection of an appeal for procedural defects is not an appellate order on merits, and therefore does not attract the bar against suo motu revision or the doctrine of merger.

---