Revisional jurisdiction over adverse findings in remand orders, and ancestral partition property cannot be treated as purely individual property.

A revisional challenge is maintainable where a Commissioner's remand order also contains an independent adverse finding prejudicial to the assessee; here, the objection to assessment under section 65 and direction to proceed under section 17 was therefore open to revision. The Court also held that lands received on partition could not be treated as purely individual property where they remained ancestral in character and the sons retained birthrights. The adverse finding was set aside, while the remand was sustained for fresh consideration of whether the holdings were distinct and whether separate assessment under section 65 was justified.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a tax revision was maintainable against the Commissioner's order under the Act; (ii) whether the assessee's lands obtained under partition were to be treated as individual property and whether the matter called for fresh consideration under section 65 of the Act.

Issue (i): whether a tax revision was maintainable against the Commissioner's order under the Act

Analysis: The Commissioner's order, though it set aside the assessment and remanded the matter, also recorded a conclusion adverse to the assessee by stating that the assessment under section 65 was not correct and that the case should proceed under section 17. That adverse determination was prejudicial to the assessee and therefore gave rise to revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The tax revision was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the assessee's lands obtained under partition were to be treated as individual property and whether the matter called for fresh consideration under section 65 of the Act

Analysis: The order of the assessing authority did not show that the assessee's distinct contentions regarding the two holdings were independently examined. The finding that the partition properties were held only in the assessee's individual capacity was held to be incorrect, since the lands were ancestral in character and the assessee's sons had a birthright in them. The adverse observation directing assessment under section 17 was therefore set aside, while the remand was sustained so that the assessee could establish that the holdings were distinct and that separate assessments under section 65 were justified.

Conclusion: The adverse finding was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded to the extent of having the Commissioner's adverse findings corrected and the assessment matter reopened for reconsideration, while the remand to the assessing authority was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional challenge is maintainable where an order, though remanding the matter, contains an independent prejudicial finding against the assessee, and ancestral property received on partition cannot be treated as purely individual property when coparcenary rights subsist.

---