Revisional assessment cannot rest on conjecture; authority must rely on existing record, and unsupported notices were quashed.

Revisional assessment power cannot be exercised on conjecture or speculative assumptions; the authority must rely on material already available in the assessment record before initiating revision. The High Court noted that revisional action based only on an inference that the assessee could not have incurred repeated losses, or on an unsubstantiated estimate of higher payments, lacked a proper foundation. Notices and assessment orders issued on that basis were therefore quashed, with liberty to issue fresh notices only if a real basis existed on the record. The note underscores that revisional jurisdiction cannot travel beyond the existing assessment material.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional authority could revise the assessment on the basis of conjecture or material not already available on the assessment record; (ii) whether notices and assessment orders founded on such conjecture were liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): whether the revisional authority could revise the assessment on the basis of conjecture or material not already available on the assessment record

Analysis: Revisional interference was held impermissible where the proposed revision rested only on a speculative inference that the assessee could not have incurred losses month after month. The revisional authority was required to find some data on the existing record before revising the assessment and could not travel beyond the material already before the assessing authority. The power to resort to section 14 was recognized, but only where the basis for action was found on the existing record and within limitation.

Conclusion: The revision could not be sustained on guesswork, and the revisional authority had no jurisdiction to go beyond the assessment record.

Issue (ii): whether notices and assessment orders founded on such conjecture were liable to be quashed

Analysis: The notices were issued without any real basis other than an assumption that higher rates must have been paid, and the assessment orders were similarly founded on an unsubstantiated estimate. Such action was not permissible for revising assessments already made by the department. Since the notices and orders lacked a proper foundation, they were quashed, while liberty was reserved to issue fresh notices if a real basis existed.

Conclusion: The notices and assessment orders were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the limits of revisional power, rejecting conjectural interference, while granting relief in the writ matters by setting aside the impugned notices and assessment orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional assessment cannot rest on conjecture and must be founded on material already available on the assessment record; an authority may not travel beyond that record in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

---