Revision jurisdiction and taxable receipts: a second revision is barred after final order, and disclosure in a return does not by itself make income taxable.

A revisional authority cannot entertain a second revision on the same matter after passing a final order, because a prior observation does not create fresh jurisdiction. A receipt disclosed in a return is not taxable merely because it was admitted; the authority must still examine whether the income is legally assessable. Where no statutory appeal has been filed, revisional jurisdiction is not barred on that ground. A protective assessment will not be sustained merely on the basis of an agreement for work and remuneration, absent a sub-partnership or overriding title.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner could entertain a second revision application after disposing of the earlier revision under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922; (ii) Whether the Commissioner erred in rejecting the revision application for the assessment year 1946-47 on the ground that the income had been shown by the assessee and whether the assessment could be sustained as a protective assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner could entertain a second revision application after disposing of the earlier revision under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.

Analysis: Once the Commissioner had passed a final order in revision, he had no jurisdiction to decide the same matter again on a fresh revision application. An observation made in the earlier order could not create jurisdiction where none existed. The earlier remark that relief might be available if the High Court later confirmed the allied assessment did not entitle the assessee to a second revision on the same point.

Conclusion: The second revision application could not be entertained on the same matter, and the Commissioner was right in refusing to reopen it.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner erred in rejecting the revision application for the assessment year 1946-47 on the ground that the income had been shown by the assessee and whether the assessment could be sustained as a protective assessment.

Analysis: The mere fact that a receipt is shown in a return does not make it taxable in law. The revisional authority had to examine whether the receipt was assessable at all. For the assessment year 1946-47 no appeal had been filed to the Tribunal, so the revisional bar applicable to orders already appealed did not apply. The protective-assessment argument also failed, because the agreement was not treated as creating a sub-partnership or an overriding title; it was only an agreement for work and remuneration.

Conclusion: The Commissioner's order dated 11 October 1957 for the assessment year 1946-47 was liable to be quashed, and the revision application for that year had to be considered afresh.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed for the assessment years 1944-45 and 1945-46, but succeeded for the assessment year 1946-47, resulting in partial relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A receipt admitted in a return is not taxable merely by reason of the admission, and a revisional authority cannot reopen the same matter by a fresh revision after a final order, though revisional jurisdiction remains available where no statutory appeal has been taken.

---