Appellate remand power is not cut down by a revisional time bar when statutory construction would otherwise produce an anomaly.

A statutory time bar on the Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 33B(2)(b) did not curtail the Tribunal's broad appellate power under section 33B(4) to pass such orders as it thought fit. The provisions had to be read together, because a contrary reading would create an anomalous result: the Tribunal could achieve the same practical outcome indirectly, yet be unable to remand the matter for fresh consideration after two years. The limitation therefore did not apply to a remand made by the Tribunal, and the Commissioner could be directed to decide the matter afresh.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the limitation in section 33B(2)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 restricted the Appellate Tribunal's power under section 33B(4) to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after the expiry of two years.

Issue (i): Whether the limitation in section 33B(2)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 restricted the Appellate Tribunal's power under section 33B(4) to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after the expiry of two years.

Analysis: Section 33B(2)(b) imposed a time bar on the Commissioner's suo motu revisional power under section 33B(1), but section 33B(4) conferred wide appellate powers on the Tribunal to pass such orders as it thought fit. Reading the provision literally would produce an anomalous result, because the Tribunal could correct the Commissioner's erroneous order and even achieve the same practical result indirectly through the Income-tax Officer, yet be prevented from remanding the matter to the Commissioner merely because the limitation period had expired. The provisions had to be construed together, and the limitation in section 33B(2)(b) could not be allowed to curtail the Tribunal's appellate power under section 33B(4) when the remand followed the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The limitation in section 33B(2)(b) does not apply to a remand made by the Tribunal under section 33B(4), and the Tribunal was right in directing the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh.

Final Conclusion: The assessment of the rival provisions favoured a construction that preserved the Tribunal's appellate authority and avoided an unreasonable result, so the revenue's challenge failed and the Tribunal's remand direction stood.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory time bar on a suo motu revisional power does not, without clear words, restrict the appellate authority's power to set aside and remand for fresh action where such construction is necessary to avoid absurdity and to make the statute work coherently as a whole.

---