Retrospective amendment in revision proceedings cannot defeat jurisdiction where the original order pre-dated the change.

A revisional authority cannot apply a later restrictive amendment to invalidate revision proceedings arising from an order passed before the amendment took effect unless retrospective operation is expressly or necessarily indicated. The applicable law is the law in force on the date of the original order, so jurisdiction must be tested by the unamended provision where the proceeding pre-dates the change. On that basis, the view that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's revision was erroneous, and the Commissioner's revisional order was held illegal and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could revise the Deputy Commissioner's order on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to entertain the assessee's revision, in view of an amendment that later restricted revisional power to orders prejudicial to the Revenue.

Analysis: The revisional order was made in respect of a Deputy Commissioner's order passed before the amendment came into force. The unamended provision governed the case, and there was no retrospective operation shown for the amendment. The earlier view that the Deputy Commissioner could not entertain a revision at the instance of the assessee was incorrect, and the Commissioner's assumption of lack of jurisdiction proceeded on an erroneous understanding of the applicable legal position.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's order was illegal and unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority cannot invalidate an order by applying a later restrictive amendment to a pre-amendment proceeding unless the amendment is expressly or necessarily retrospective; the law in force on the date of the original order governs the jurisdictional question.

---