Revisional jurisdiction barred when an assessment order is already under appeal, preventing suo motu interference with the same order.

Where an assessment order is already under appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner cannot invoke suo motu revisional jurisdiction over that same order when section 32(2)(b) bars such interference. The Madras HC followed its earlier rulings and held that revision is unavailable once the assessment order has entered the appellate process, because the revisional authority cannot act on an order already subjected to appeal. The revisional order was therefore held illegal, with the ruling favouring the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise revisional jurisdiction under section 32 when the assessment order was already the subject of an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis: The assessment order had been carried in appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In such a situation, section 32(2)(b) barred the Deputy Commissioner from interfering with the same order in suo motu revision. The earlier decisions of the Court had already settled that where the order of the assessing authority is under appeal, revisional power cannot be invoked in respect of that order.

Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction was not exercisable and the Deputy Commissioner's order was illegal. The finding was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment order is already the subject of an appeal, the revisional authority cannot exercise suo motu revision over that same order if the statute bars such interference.

---