Revisional jurisdiction without a prescribed limitation was upheld where notice was served, and later developments rendered the challenge infructuous.

Where the relevant assessment law prescribed no limitation period for revisional action, the revisional order was upheld because notice had been served on the assessee's accountant within five years of the original assessment and no appearance was made. The challenge that the revision was time-barred or invalid for want of notice was rejected, and the revisional authority was treated as competent to remand the matter for redetermination of tax liability. The later setting aside of the downstream reassessment order left no effective relief available in the petitions, so the challenge to the earlier remand order was also held to have become infructuous.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation or otherwise invalid for want of notice to the assessee; (ii) whether the revision petitions had become infructuous after the subsequent setting aside of the re-assessment order.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation or otherwise invalid for want of notice to the assessee.

Analysis: The revisional authority had no prescribed limitation period for passing the order in the relevant assessment year. The record showed that notice was served upon the assessee's accountant within five years of the original assessment order, and no appearance was made despite service. On that basis, the revisional authority was competent to revise the assessment and remand the matter for redetermination of tax liability. The challenge that the order was passed after five years without notice was therefore rejected.

Conclusion: The revisional order was held to be valid and within time, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision petitions had become infructuous after the subsequent setting aside of the re-assessment order.

Analysis: After remand, the Assessing Authority passed a fresh order, and the Tribunal later set aside that subsequent assessment order to the extent of directing an opportunity regarding ST-XXII forms. Since the present petitions challenged the earlier remand order, and the downstream assessment order had already been interfered with, no effective relief could survive in these petitions.

Conclusion: The petitions were held to have become infructuous.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the revisional remand order failed on merits, and the proceedings were also rendered incapable of granting further relief because of subsequent developments.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes no limitation for revisional action, and notice is duly served within the relevant period, the revisional order cannot be invalidated as time-barred merely because the assessee did not participate; subsequent developments may also render the challenge infructuous.

---