Revisional power cannot be used as de facto reassessment; time-barred proceedings to disturb the original assessment were invalid.

Revisional power under section 20 could not be used to reopen the original assessment under the guise of revising an earlier revisional order, because fresh enquiry into the genuineness of F forms and consignment sales amounted in substance to a second assessment for the same year. The proceedings were also time-barred, as revision of the original assessment had to be initiated within four years from service of that order, but notice was issued well after the statutory period. The revisional action and consequential order were therefore set aside as without jurisdiction and barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority could, in substance, reopen the original assessment under the guise of revising the earlier revisional order, and thereby undertake a second round of assessment for the same year; (ii) whether the proposed revision and the consequential order were barred by limitation under the revisional provision.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority could, in substance, reopen the original assessment under the guise of revising the earlier revisional order, and thereby undertake a second round of assessment for the same year.

Analysis: The revisional power under section 20 permitted revision of orders passed by subordinate authorities, but the manner in which the authority proceeded showed that it did not confine itself to the later revisional order. Fresh enquiries were undertaken to test the genuineness of the F forms and the consignment sales for the assessment year again, which in effect amounted to reassessment of the original assessment order. A revisional order could not be used as a device to revive and re-adjudicate the assessment on fresh material when the earlier revisional order itself was only being formally targeted.

Conclusion: The exercise was held to be an impermissible reassessment and not a lawful revision of the earlier revisional order.

Issue (ii): Whether the proposed revision and the consequential order were barred by limitation under the revisional provision.

Analysis: Section 20(3) limited revision of an assessment order to four years from the date of service of that order. The original assessment order was dated 15 March 2003, while the show-cause notice initiating the present proceedings was issued only on 11 May 2009, well beyond the statutory period. Since the real effect of the proceedings was to disturb the original assessment, the initiation itself was time-barred.

Conclusion: The proceedings were held to be barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The revisional action and the consequential order were set aside as being without jurisdiction and time-barred, and the assessee succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power cannot be used to conduct a de facto reassessment of the original order, and where the original assessment is sought to be disturbed beyond the statutory period of revision, the proceedings are without jurisdiction.

---