Revisional discretion cannot be refused merely because no appeal was filed; irrelevant grounds cannot defeat statutory revision.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 32 could not be declined solely because the assessee had not filed an appeal against the assessment order. The court held that this was an irrelevant consideration, since revision is ordinarily invoked only where the assessment is not already in appeal. The Deputy Commissioner was therefore required to exercise discretion on relevant grounds and decide the revision according to law. The Tribunal's remand for fresh disposal was sustained, and the revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could refuse to exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 32 solely because the assessee had not filed an appeal against the assessment order.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 32 is a discretionary jurisdiction, but the discretion must be exercised on relevant considerations. Refusal to entertain the revision merely because the assessee did not prefer an appeal was held to be an irrelevant ground, since the very occasion for invoking revision arises only when no appeal has been taken and the assessment is not already in appeal. The Tribunal's remand was therefore supportable, even though its stated reason was not accepted.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner could not decline to exercise revision solely on the ground that no appeal had been filed, and the remand for fresh disposal was upheld in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed, and the order remitting the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for decision according to law was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional discretion cannot be refused on a ground that is legally irrelevant to the exercise of that discretion, particularly where the statute permits revision only when the assessment has not already been carried in appeal.

---