Revisional power cannot reopen a concluded appellate order merely because a later tribunal view differs.

Revisional power under section 40 is limited to correcting illegality or impropriety in an existing order, and it cannot be used to reopen a concluded appellate order merely because a later tribunal ruling takes a different view. An order made in accordance with the law prevailing at the time does not become illegal or improper retrospectively. The text also notes that upsetting such finalized matters would create uncertainty and endless reopening of closed cases. On that basis, the revisional authority was not justified in interfering, and the Tribunal's setting aside of the revisional order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the appellate order passed on the basis of the law then prevailing, merely because a later tribunal decision took a contrary view.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 40 is confined to examining the legality or propriety of proceedings or orders already made. An appellate order passed in accordance with the law then holding the field cannot be treated as illegal or improper merely because a subsequent decision later takes a different view. Permitting revision on that basis would unsettle concluded matters and lead to endless reopening of finalized cases. The revisional authority could not also upset an order that was founded on an earlier tribunal decision that was operative at the relevant time.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was not justified in interfering, and the Tribunal was right in setting aside the revisional order. The answer was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

---