Prior final revision by one partner bars a later revision by another partner, and nondisclosure of that fact justifies refusal of writ relief.

A subsequent revision against an assessment order by another partner of the same firm was held not maintainable where an earlier revision on the same matter had already been filed by a partner, dismissed in exercise of revisional powers, and attained finality. The court also treated nondisclosure of that prior revision and its dismissal as suppression of a material fact, because it bore directly on maintainability and entitlement to writ relief. On that basis, the writ challenge was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a second revision against the assessment order was maintainable after an earlier revision by another partner of the same firm had already been dismissed and had attained finality; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of the material fact that the earlier revision had been filed and decided.

Issue (i): whether a second revision against the assessment order was maintainable after an earlier revision by another partner of the same firm had already been dismissed and had attained finality.

Analysis: The petitioner accepted that another partner, who was a working partner and was looking after the business, had already challenged the assessment order by filing a revision under section 39(1)(b) of the Act. That revision was dismissed in exercise of the Commissioner's delegated revisional powers under section 39, and the order dismissing it had become final. In that situation, a further revision at the instance of another partner of the same firm could not be entertained.

Conclusion: The second revision was not maintainable and its dismissal was justified.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for suppression of the material fact that the earlier revision had been filed and decided.

Analysis: The petition did not disclose the earlier revision filed by the other partner or the fact of its dismissal. The omission related to a material circumstance because it went directly to the maintainability of the present challenge and affected the Court's assessment of the petitioner's entitlement to relief.

Conclusion: The petition was liable to fail on the ground of suppression of material facts.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was unsustainable both because the impugned revisional challenge was barred by the prior final revisional order and because of nondisclosure of a material fact bearing on maintainability.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an earlier revision against an order has been filed by one partner of a firm and has attained finality, a subsequent revision by another partner on the same matter is not maintainable, and suppression of that earlier proceeding constitutes an additional ground for refusing writ relief.

---