Revisional power cannot bypass the appellate route, and accounts cannot be rejected on mere suspicion without positive evidence.

The Commissioner could not use revisional power under section 34 to interfere with an Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order where the Act provided a specific appellate route, and the objection arose from the Commissioner himself; revisional jurisdiction could not be used to bypass that hierarchy. The Commissioner also could not reject the assessee's regularly kept accounts or set aside the assessment on mere suspicion, conjecture, or inspection impressions. Rejection of accounts required positive material showing unreliability, and any doubt had to be tested against relevant evidence. The ruling states that the assessee's books could not be discarded on bare surmise and that revisional interference in these circumstances was without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could, in exercise of revisional power under section 34, interfere with an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the appellate scheme of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950; and (ii) whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the assessee's accounts and setting aside the Agricultural Income-tax Officer's assessment on the basis of suspicion and inspection impressions.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could, in exercise of revisional power under section 34, interfere with an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the appellate scheme of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950.

Analysis: Where the Commissioner himself had taken exception to the appellate order, the statutory course that preserved the proper hierarchy and the requirements of fairness was to proceed under the specific appellate mechanism rather than to invoke the general revisional jurisdiction. A revisional power could not be used to bypass the appeal procedure expressly provided by the Act, particularly when the objection originated with the Commissioner himself.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise the appellate order under section 34 in these circumstances, and the answer was against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner was justified in rejecting the assessee's accounts and setting aside the Agricultural Income-tax Officer's assessment on the basis of suspicion and inspection impressions.

Analysis: Accounts maintained in the ordinary course of business could not be rejected merely on conjecture, suspicion, or an officer's impression from inspection. Rejection required positive material showing unreliability. If the assessing authority doubted the return, it had to seek supporting evidence on specified points and determine the assessment on relevant material, not on bare surmise. On the facts, the Commissioner overlooked material showing that the estate was a developing concern and failed to identify any substantial evidence justifying rejection of the books and vouchers.

Conclusion: The Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the accounts or in setting aside the assessments, and the answer was against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered by holding that the revisional interference was without jurisdiction and that the assessee's accounts could not be discarded on mere suspicion, so the assessee succeeded on the substantive questions decided.

Ratio Decidendi: A general revisional power cannot be used to displace a specific appellate remedy in a manner inconsistent with natural justice, and audited or regularly kept accounts may be rejected only on positive evidence of unreliability, not on suspicion or conjecture.

---