Tax revision limitation rejected without considering bank correspondence was set aside and remanded for fresh reconsideration.

A Commissioner's rejection of a tax revision as time-barred could not stand where the assessee's supporting bank correspondence on uncharged interest had not been considered. The High Court held that limitation could not be decided in isolation from material bearing on the claim, especially where the correspondence was relevant to whether interest had been waived and later debited. The adverse order was quashed, the limitation finding was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal on limitation and merits after considering all relevant material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner's order rejecting the assessee's revision on limitation, without considering the bank's letter regarding uncharged interest, was sustainable.

Analysis: The assessee sought allowance of interest as expenditure for the relevant assessment years and placed reliance on the bank's letter indicating that interest had originally been waived and would be debited later. The impugned order proceeded on the ground that the revision was time-barred, but the Commissioner did not deal with the said letter or record any finding on its effect. In these circumstances, the limitation objection could not be sustained without first considering the relevant correspondence and the factual basis of the claim.

Conclusion: The finding that the revision petitions were out of time was set aside, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal after considering the bank's letter. The relief was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded to the extent that the adverse order was annulled and the matter was sent back for reconsideration on the merits and limitation after taking the relevant material into account.

Ratio Decidendi: An order rejecting a tax revision on limitation cannot stand where relevant material bearing on the claim has not been considered, and the matter must be reconsidered on the basis of all material facts.

---