Revisional jurisdiction survives pending appeal where statutory bars do not apply; merger covers only issues actually decided on appeal.

A revisional authority may interfere with a subordinate order even where an appeal route exists or has been pursued, so long as the statutory restrictions on revision do not apply and the revision is within limitation. The doctrine of merger is not universal: it operates only to the extent the appellate forum has actually decided the matter. Where the specific subject matter revised was not placed before or determined by the Tribunal, that aspect of the subordinate order does not merge in the appellate order and revision remains competent. On that basis, the revisional order was sustained and no relief was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under the revisional provision to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner's order notwithstanding the availability or pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal; (ii) whether the doctrine of merger barred revision of the Assistant Commissioner's order after the Tribunal had dealt with the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction under the revisional provision to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner's order notwithstanding the availability or pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The revisional provision empowered the Commissioner to call for and revise orders of subordinate authorities, subject only to the specific statutory restrictions. Those restrictions did not apply because the time for the Commissioner's appeal had expired, the Tribunal appeal had already been disposed of, and the order was within the prescribed period of limitation. The statutory scheme therefore did not exclude revisional power merely because an appeal route existed.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had jurisdiction to revise the order.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of merger barred revision of the Assistant Commissioner's order after the Tribunal had dealt with the appeal.

Analysis: The doctrine of merger is not of universal application and depends on the scope of the appellate or revisional jurisdiction under the statute. The merger operated only to the extent the Tribunal had actually decided the matter. Since the subject matter revised by the Commissioner had not been placed before and determined by the Tribunal, the Assistant Commissioner's order on that aspect did not merge in the appellate order so as to oust revision.

Conclusion: The doctrine of merger did not bar the revision.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was sustained and the assessee obtained no relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Under a statute conferring revisional power subject only to specified exceptions, revision remains competent unless the case falls within those exceptions, and the doctrine of merger extends only to matters actually decided by the appellate authority.

---