Revision under tax law requires prejudice; a mere refusal to interfere is not prejudicial and cannot be revised.

Section 54 revision is available only against an order under section 34 that is prejudicial to the assessee. The phrase "otherwise prejudicial" does not remove the prejudice requirement; it extends revision to orders that may not enhance assessment but still place the assessee in a worse position. An order declining to interfere is expressly declared by the proviso to section 34 not to be prejudicial, and that declaration is conclusive. A mere affirmance of the lower authority leaves the assessee in the same position and does not create prejudice, so revision was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision lies under section 54 against an order of the Commissioner under section 34 declining to interfere, when such order does not enhance the assessee's liability or otherwise place the assessee in a worse position.

Analysis: Section 54 permits revision of orders under section 34 only where the impugned order is prejudicial to the assessee. The expression "otherwise prejudicial" does not dispense with the requirement of prejudice; it merely covers orders that do not enhance assessment but still cause prejudice. The proviso to section 34 expressly declares that an order declining to interfere shall not be deemed prejudicial, and such a declaration is conclusive. An order merely affirming the lower authority leaves the assessee in the same position as before and does not itself create prejudice.

Conclusion: The revision petitions were not maintainable and were dismissed.

---