Recorded reasons for reopening are essential; without them, a revisional order founded on reassessment cannot survive.

An assessee may challenge the validity of the foundational reassessment in an appeal against a revisional order where the reassessment is the basis of the revisional action, including a jurisdictional objection not raised earlier. Where reopening under the wealth-tax provisions was unsupported by recorded reasons and the assessment record did not disclose reasons showing escapement of wealth, the reassessment was jurisdictionally defective. On that basis, the revisional order could not survive and was quashed, with relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could, in an appeal against the revisional order under section 25(2), challenge the legality of the original reassessment made under sections 16(3) and 17. (ii) Whether the revisional order under section 25(2) was sustainable when the reopening of the wealth-tax assessment was not supported by recorded reasons.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could, in an appeal against the revisional order under section 25(2), challenge the legality of the original reassessment made under sections 16(3) and 17.

Analysis: The revisional proceedings were directed at an assessment that formed the basis of the Commissioner's action. The assessee was therefore entitled to question the validity of that foundational assessment in the appeal against revision. A jurisdictional objection going to the root of the matter was held to be open even though it had not been raised in the original appeal memo.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to challenge the validity of the original assessment in the appeal against the revisional order.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order under section 25(2) was sustainable when the reopening of the wealth-tax assessment was not supported by recorded reasons.

Analysis: The records produced did not contain the reasons recorded for issuing notice under section 17, and the assessment order-sheet also did not disclose any such reasons. In the absence of recorded reasons showing escapement of wealth, the foundational reassessment itself was treated as jurisdictionally defective, which in turn rendered the revision unsustainable.

Conclusion: The revisional order under section 25(2) was not sustainable and was quashed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional orders for all the assessment years were invalid and stood quashed, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order cannot survive where the foundational reassessment is jurisdictionally defective for want of recorded reasons, and such defect may be challenged in appeal against the revisional order.

---