Revisional jurisdiction under agricultural income-tax law does not extend to a Commissioner's refusal to interfere with assessee's revision.

Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 permits revision by the Commissioner on his own motion or on the assessee's application, but the second proviso deems a refusal to interfere as not prejudicial to the assessee. Section 54 limits High Court revisional jurisdiction to orders under section 34 that enhance the assessment or are otherwise prejudicial. Read together, a mere rejection of the assessee's revision petition does not constitute a revisable prejudicial order, so a revision under section 54 against that refusal is not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision under section 54 lies to the High Court against the Commissioner's order rejecting the assessee's revision petition under section 34, when the rejection does not place the assessee in a worse position than the original assessment.

Analysis: Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, expressly permits revision by the Commissioner on his own motion or on application by the assessee, but the second proviso to section 34(1) declares that an order declining to interfere shall not be deemed prejudicial to the assessee. Section 54 confines the High Court's revisional jurisdiction to orders under section 34 that enhance the assessment or are otherwise prejudicial to the assessee. Reading the two provisions together, the statutory scheme shows that a mere rejection of the assessee's revision by the Commissioner is not an appealable or revisable prejudicial order.

Conclusion: The revision under section 54 was not maintainable against the Commissioner's order rejecting the assessee's revision petition, and the challenge failed.

---