Revisional power and reasonable delay in suo motu tax revision: appeal availability does not bar revision, but belated reopening needs explanation.

Section 34 revisional power remains available even where an appellate remedy exists; the mere availability of appeal does not exclude revision, and a general allegation of bias does not vitiate the jurisdiction without specific supporting material. Suo motu revision without a statutory time limit must still be initiated within a reasonable period, with cogent reasons for any delay when concluded assessments are reopened. On the facts, the belated revision was unsustainable for the earlier assessment years because no satisfactory explanation was shown, but it was accepted for assessment year 1985-86 as being within a reasonable time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional power under section 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, could be invoked even though an appellate remedy under section 32(2) was available and bias was alleged. (ii) Whether the suo motu revisional order was vitiated for want of reasonable promptitude and explanation for delay, and if so, for which assessment years.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional power under section 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, could be invoked even though an appellate remedy under section 32(2) was available and bias was alleged.

Analysis: The statutory scheme confers both appellate and revisional powers on the Commissioner. The appellate route is ordinarily the proper course where both remedies are available, but section 34 is not excluded merely because an appeal could have been pursued. The revisional jurisdiction is extraordinary and must be exercised bona fide and consistently with natural justice. A general allegation of bias cannot invalidate the power itself in the absence of specific pleadings and supporting materials.

Conclusion: The power under section 34 was not invalid merely because an appellate remedy existed, and the broad plea of bias was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the suo motu revisional order was vitiated for want of reasonable promptitude and explanation for delay, and if so, for which assessment years.

Analysis: A suo motu revisional power without a statutory time limit must still be exercised within a reasonable period. When completed assessments are reopened after a long lapse, the authority must disclose cogent reasons for the delay. On the facts, no satisfactory explanation for the belated initiation was shown in the notice or the revisional order for the earlier assessment years. For the assessment year 1985-86, however, the initiation was held to be within a reasonable time.

Conclusion: The revision failed for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1980-81, but was upheld for the assessment year 1985-86.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee in part and in favour of the Revenue in part, with the revisional action sustained only for the assessment year 1985-86 and rejected for the earlier years.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers both appellate and revisional remedies, the revisional power remains available, but suo motu revision must be exercised reasonably and with an explanation for delay, especially when reopening concluded assessments after a substantial lapse of time.

---