Revisional jurisdiction over an appealed assessment order was barred, and refusal of suo motu relief was not separately appealable.

An order refusing suo motu relief was held not appealable because it did not place the assessee in a worse position than the original assessment, so the statutory right of appeal was not enlarged by a request to reopen the assessment on a different basis. The Tribunal also stated that once the assessment order had already been carried in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise suo motu revisional power over that same order, as the statutory bar applied to the entire assessment order and not to isolated issues within it. The merits were not examined and relief was refused on jurisdictional grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal lay against an order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to grant suo motu relief when the assessee was not placed in a worse position than under the assessment order; (ii) Whether the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to grant relief where the assessment order had already become the subject-matter of appeal before the appellate authority.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal lay against an order of the Deputy Commissioner refusing to grant suo motu relief when the assessee was not placed in a worse position than under the assessment order.

Analysis: The appellate provision was construed as conferring a right of appeal only where the assessee was aggrieved by an order that worsened his position. The revisional order declining relief was treated as not creating any new appellate right merely because the assessee sought reopening of the assessment on a different basis. Earlier decisions and the analogous principle that a voluntary revisional step cannot enlarge the statutory right of appeal were applied.

Conclusion: The appeal was held not maintainable on this ground and the assessee's contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to grant relief where the assessment order had already become the subject-matter of appeal before the appellate authority.

Analysis: The statutory bar on revision once the order had been made the subject of an appeal was treated as categorical. The word "order" was understood to mean the entire assessment order, not severable issues within it. Accordingly, once the assessment had been carried in appeal, the Deputy Commissioner could not exercise suo motu power to grant relief on another aspect of that same order.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner was held to have no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined to examine the merits and sustained the refusal of relief on jurisdictional grounds, resulting in dismissal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory revisional or appellate remedy cannot be invoked where the challenged assessment order has already been carried in appeal, and an order refusing suo motu relief is not appealable unless it places the assessee in a worse position than the original assessment.

---