Revisional jurisdiction cannot be expanded by fresh evidence; rule 17 action without prior section 12 proceedings was held without jurisdiction.

The revisional power under section 12(2) is limited to examining an existing assessment record for legality, propriety, or regularity, and does not authorise a fresh exercise of jurisdiction to determine escaped turnover under rule 17. Rule 17(1A) and rule 17(3A) operate only where proceedings under section 11 or section 12 have already taken place; they do not create an independent power outside those statutory proceedings. Fresh evidence cannot enlarge that revisional jurisdiction. Action taken under rule 17 without prior section 12 proceedings was therefore without jurisdiction, and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could revise the assessment and determine escaped turnover under rule 17 in the absence of proceedings under section 12.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 12(2) is confined to examining the record of an existing order for legality, propriety, or regularity. Rule 17(1A) and rule 17(3A) contemplate action by the appellate or revising authority only where proceedings under section 11 or section 12 have already occurred. Fresh evidence could not be used to enlarge the revisional jurisdiction, and the wording of rule 17(3A) did not create an independent power to act outside those statutory proceedings.

Conclusion: The action taken under rule 17 without section 12 proceedings was without jurisdiction, and the assessee succeeded.

---