Fresh order on remand is not time-barred when it merely implements a valid appellate direction.

A fresh order made to implement a valid appellate or supervisory direction is not barred merely because the original limitation period has expired. Where the Commissioner's revisional order under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 was passed within the prescribed two-year period, the later order on remand was treated as effecting the appellate mandate rather than as a new, independent exercise of revisional power. The principle applied was that a lawful direction to make a fresh order is not defeated by expiry of the original time limit, so the subsequent order need not separately satisfy that limitation again.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could pass a fresh order under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 after the expiry of the two-year period prescribed in that section when the Tribunal had set aside the original order and directed fresh disposal after hearing the assessee.

Analysis: The statutory bar in section 33B(2) governed the first exercise of the Commissioner's revisional power and was satisfied when the original order was made within time. Once that order was vacated on appeal and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal, the subsequent order was only in implementation of the appellate direction. The Court applied the principle that a lawful direction to make a fresh order is not defeated by the expiry of the original limitation period, and held that the later order need not independently satisfy the same time-limit again.

Conclusion: The question was answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue; the Commissioner could act afresh notwithstanding expiry of the two-year period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an original statutory order is made within the prescribed limitation period, a later order passed to give effect to a valid appellate or supervisory direction is not barred merely because the original limitation period has since expired.

---