Revisional refusal and writ delay failed; no manifest error was shown in denying partner loss deduction for rate purposes.

Rejection of a revisional application does not, by itself, cause the subordinate assessment order to merge into the revisional order; the original order remains operative where revision is merely refused. A writ petition is not barred by delay when the assessee timely pursued the statutory revisional remedy and approached the Court soon after the revisional rejection was communicated. In certiorari, an error apparent must be manifest and not merely a debatable construction; on the statutory scheme governing exemption, computation of total income, partner's share of firm losses, and set-off, the revenue's view was reasonably possible. The challenge to denial of deduction for rate purposes therefore failed, and the assessment was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the original assessment order merged in the order passed in revision rejecting the assessee's application; (ii) whether the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay; and (iii) whether the impugned assessment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record in denying deduction of the partner's share of loss from an unregistered firm for rate purposes.

Issue (i): whether the original assessment order merged in the order passed in revision rejecting the assessee's application.

Analysis: A distinction was drawn between an appellate order and an order in revision. Where the revisional authority merely rejects the application and does not modify or reverse the subordinate order, the revisional order is only a refusal to interfere. The subordinate order remains the operative order, and no merger takes place merely because revision was sought and rejected.

Conclusion: The original assessment order did not merge in the revisional order; the objection based on merger failed.

Issue (ii): whether the petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Analysis: Although the writ petition was filed after a substantial interval from the assessment order, the assessee had pursued the statutory revisional remedy within time and approached the Court shortly after the revisional rejection was communicated. That sequence furnished an adequate explanation for the lapse of time.

Conclusion: The petition was not barred by delay; the objection failed.

Issue (iii): whether the impugned assessment disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record in denying deduction of the partner's share of loss from an unregistered firm for rate purposes.

Analysis: For certiorari jurisdiction, the error must be manifest and not one that can reasonably be supported by one of two possible views. On the construction of sections dealing with exemption, computation of total income, partner's share in firm profits or losses, and set-off of loss, the Court held that the revenue's interpretation was reasonably possible. The statutory scheme permitted the view that a partner's share of loss in an unregistered firm was not required to be deducted for determining the rate of tax in the manner claimed.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and the substantive challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on all grounds, and the assessment as rectified was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rejection of a revision application does not, by itself, cause the subordinate order to merge in the revisional order; and in writ jurisdiction an error of law is actionable only when it is manifest and incapable of support by a reasonably possible view of the statutory scheme.

---