Revisional power and finality of appeals: condonation of delay must be properly examined, and a finalised assessment cannot be reappealed.

A revisional authority may invoke suo motu revision against an appellate order passed after condonation of delay, but it must consider the assessee's objections and examine whether the delay was properly condoned; failure to do so renders the revision unsustainable to that extent. A fresh second appeal is not maintainable where the assessment proceedings for an earlier year have already travelled through the appellate hierarchy and attained finality. The appellate relief for the other years was sustained because the delay was condoned on cogent grounds, supported by the Board's clarification on tax classification, and the consequential direction on verification of excess tax collection and penalty was treated as proper.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could interfere with the appellate order under its suo motu revisional power when the appellate authority had exercised discretion to condone delay and had also decided the appeals on merits; (ii) whether the appellate order could be sustained for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77 and whether the second appeal for 1975-76 was maintainable after the earlier appellate and tribunal proceedings had attained finality.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could interfere with the appellate order under its suo motu revisional power when the appellate authority had exercised discretion to condone delay and had also decided the appeals on merits.

Analysis: The appellate order was not confined to condonation of delay under the appellate provision alone, but was an order passed on the appeals themselves after delay had been condoned. An order of that nature was amenable to suo motu revision. However, while exercising revisional power, the revisional authority was bound to consider the objections raised by the assessee and to examine whether the appellate authority had properly exercised discretion in condoning delay. As that was not done, the revisional order could not stand to that extent.

Conclusion: The revisional authority had jurisdiction to invoke suo motu revision, but its order setting aside the appellate order was unsustainable because the relevant objections and the propriety of condonation were not considered.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate order could be sustained for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1976-77 and whether the second appeal for 1975-76 was maintainable after the earlier appellate and tribunal proceedings had attained finality.

Analysis: For 1975-76, the matter had already been carried through the appellate hierarchy and had attained finality before the tribunal; a fresh appeal against the same assessment order was not maintainable. For 1974-75 and 1976-77, the delay in filing the appeals was properly condoned on cogent grounds after the Board's clarification regarding the correct tax classification of electric motors. The appellate authority's interference with the assessments was also supported by the material before it, and the direction regarding verification of excess tax collection and penalty was a proper consequential direction.

Conclusion: The order was upheld for 1974-75 and 1976-77, but the appeal for 1975-76 failed.

Final Conclusion: The assessees succeeded only in part: the appellate relief was restored for two assessment years, while the assessment for 1975-76 remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority may revise an appellate order passed after condonation of delay, but it must consider the assessee's objections and the propriety of the appellate discretion; a second appeal against an assessment already carried to finality is not maintainable.

---