Revisional jurisdiction over recall of best judgment assessment is limited when the assessing officer accepts a valid explanation.

A revisional authority should not ordinarily use suo motu jurisdiction to revisit an assessing officer's acceptance of cause shown for recalling a best judgment assessment. Where the assessee produced a medical certificate and the assessing officer accepted the explanation, cancelled the best judgment assessment, and permitted a return to be filed, the later assessment on that return was not shown to be defective. In these circumstances, reappreciating the sufficiency of the explanation and restoring the original assessment was improper. The legal principle is that revision is not meant to substitute the Commissioner's view for the assessing officer's discretionary acceptance of cause, unless intervention is needed to correct a clear legal irregularity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner, in suo motu revision, could set aside the Agricultural Income-tax Officer's order recalling the best judgment assessment and restore the original assessment on the ground that the assessee's explanation for delay in filing the return was not acceptable.

Analysis: The assessment was originally made under best judgment after non-compliance with statutory notices. The assessee later sought recall on the ground that his karwari was under medical treatment, and the assessing officer accepted that explanation and cancelled the assessment, permitting a return to be filed. The assessee was thereafter assessed on the return filed. In revision, the Commissioner reappreciated the sufficiency of the cause shown for recall and held that the reopening was irregular. The Court held that the assessee had merely invoked the statutory process and produced a medical certificate, which the assessing officer accepted as sufficient. In such circumstances, the revisional authority ought not ordinarily to interfere suo motu with the assessing officer's acceptance of cause, particularly when the later assessment on return was not found defective.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's interference in revision was unwarranted and the restoration of the original best judgment assessment was improper.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority should not ordinarily exercise suo motu jurisdiction to reassess the sufficiency of cause accepted by the assessing officer for recalling a best judgment assessment, unless interference is necessary to correct a clear legal irregularity.

---