Prejudicial revisional order requires material detriment; bare refusal to interfere in revision is not enough for reference.

A revisional order is prejudicial to the assessee only if it materially worsens the assessee's position in the statutory scheme; the same meaning was attributed to the relevant phrases in sections 34 and 60(2). A bare refusal to interfere in revision, without more, does not by itself create the necessary prejudice. An order may still be prejudicial if it contains adverse observations capable of being used against the assessee, but that circumstance was absent here. Accordingly, a reference does not lie merely because revision was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order passed under section 34 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act declining to interfere in revision is an order "prejudicial to the assessee" so as to be referable under section 60(2) of the Act.

Analysis: The phrases used in section 34 and section 60(2) were treated as requiring the same meaning in the statutory scheme. An order is prejudicial only if it places the assessee in a worse position than before the revisional order was made. Mere rejection of an application for revision, without anything more, does not by itself create the requisite prejudice. An order may still be prejudicial if it contains adverse observations capable of being used against the assessee, but that was not the case here.

Conclusion: An order merely declining to interfere in revision is not ordinarily an order prejudicial to the assessee under section 60(2), and a reference does not lie on that basis alone.

Ratio Decidendi: For a revisional order to be "prejudicial to the assessee," it must materially worsen the assessee's position; a bare refusal to interfere does not satisfy that test.

---