Revisional power requires disclosed material and fair opportunity; vague claims of excess deductions cannot justify interference.

Revisional interference under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 requires disclosed material and a real opportunity for the assessee to rebut the proposed revision. The Commissioner could not disturb deductions for manager's residence upkeep, plucking charges, and maintenance of lines, latrines and motor vehicles on a vague assertion of excess allowance, especially where the vouchers, accounts and supporting records were not challenged. A notice confined to the first appellate order, without a clear proposal to revise the original assessment, was also insufficient. The revisional action was therefore unsustainable for want of proper jurisdictional basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke revisional power under section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 to interfere with the deductions allowed by the subordinate authorities, including the expenditure on upkeep of the manager's residence, plucking charges, and maintenance of lines, latrines and motor vehicles.

Analysis: The revisional power could be exercised only on the basis of relevant material and after giving the assessee a proper opportunity to meet the proposed revision. The show-cause notice did not disclose any material supporting the view that the deductions were excessive, and it was confined to revision of the first appellate order and consequential assessment without indicating a proposal to revise the original assessment order itself. The genuineness of the vouchers, accounts and supporting records was not disputed. In such circumstances, mere assertion that the expenditure was allowed in excess could not justify revision. The reasoning adopted for restricting or disallowing the deductions was also found to be based on irrelevant considerations.

Conclusion: The Commissioner acted without proper jurisdictional basis in revising the allowances, and the impugned order could not be sustained. The revision was therefore allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority must found its action on disclosed material and cannot interfere with accepted deductions on a vague allegation of excess allowance, particularly where the genuineness of the supporting accounts is not challenged and the assessee is not given a real opportunity to rebut the proposed revision.

---