Discretionary revision and unexplained delay can defeat a reference when no question of law arises.

A revisional authority may refuse to entertain a revision petition where the delay is inordinate and unexplained, because the remedy of revision is discretionary and must be exercised on judicial grounds, not arbitrarily. Whether delay justifies rejection depends on the facts of each case, and there is no absolute rule that a belated revision must be heard merely because no limitation period is prescribed. On the facts, the petitioners gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay, so no referable question of law arose and the application for reference was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Financial Commissioner was bound to state a case and refer questions of law to the High Court after dismissing the revision petition on the ground of unexplained delay in filing it.

Analysis: The remedy of revision is discretionary, but that discretion must be exercised on judicial grounds and not arbitrarily. A refusal to entertain a revision petition because of inordinate and unexplained delay is a proper exercise of that discretion. Whether delay justifies rejection depends on the facts of each case, and no absolute rule can be laid down that a belated revision must always be entertained merely because no specific limitation period is prescribed. On the facts, the petitioners offered no satisfactory explanation for the long delay, and the order dismissing the revision did not give rise to any question of law requiring reference.

Conclusion: The application for reference was not maintainable, and the refusal to refer the alleged questions of law was in law. The decision is against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional authority exercises its statutory discretion to reject a belated revision for unexplained delay, no referable question of law arises unless the exercise of discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

---