Revisional jurisdiction cannot be used against an order by an officer of the same rank, but separate revision pendency may not bar action.

Pendency of a separate revision application before the Tribunal was treated as materially different from a pending appeal on the assessment merits, so the earlier Supreme Court rule on simultaneous appeal and revision did not apply; the first issue was decided against the assessee. Revisional power delegated under the statutory notification could not be exercised by an officer to revise an order passed by an authority of the same rank, and the contrary position was treated as no longer pressed; the second issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The reference was thus answered partly against the assessee and partly in its favour.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether revisional action could be taken despite pendency of proceedings related to revision before the Tribunal. (ii) Whether revision by an officer of the same rank as the assessing authority was permissible.

Issue (i): Whether revisional action could be taken despite pendency of proceedings related to revision before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The pending matter was not an appeal against the assessment itself but an application seeking revision and the challenge to its rejection. That situation was materially different from pendency of an appeal on merits, and the earlier Supreme Court ruling on simultaneous revision and appeal did not govern the facts.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether revision by an officer of the same rank as the assessing authority was permissible.

Analysis: Revisional power delegated under the statutory notification could not be exercised by an officer to revise an order passed by an authority of the same rank. The contrary view was treated as having been given up by the State and the Tribunal had itself proceeded on that basis in later cases.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered partly against the assessee and partly in its favour, with the first question rejected and the second accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction delegated to an authority does not extend to revising orders made by an officer of the same rank, and a ruling on pendency of a separate revision proceeding cannot be equated with a pending appeal on the assessment merits.

---