Revisional power cannot bypass escaped-assessment limits where reassessment is governed by the statutory time bar.

The Commissioner could not use revisional power under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act to reopen assessments for escaped income when section 35 specifically governed reassessment of escaped income and was subject to its own time limits. The revisional jurisdiction remained subject to the Act and could not be used to bypass the special reassessment machinery or extend the Commissioner's power after the section 35 period had expired. The second proviso to section 35(2) was treated as extending time only where a valid revisional direction could otherwise operate, not as enlarging the Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order was therefore without jurisdiction and time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner could invoke revisional power under section 34 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 to reopen assessments and direct fresh disposal in a case where the income had escaped assessment, or whether such action could be taken only under section 35 within the prescribed time.

Analysis: Section 35 specifically deals with income escaping assessment and confers the power of assessment or reassessment on the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, subject to the statutory time limits. The revisional power under section 34 is wide, but it remains subject to the Act and cannot be used to bypass the special machinery and limitations laid down for escaped income. The majority treated the Supreme Court authority on escaped assessment as controlling and held that, where the real object of the revisional order is to bring escaped income to tax, the Commissioner cannot do indirectly under section 34 what section 35 alone authorises, especially after the period for action under section 35 has expired. The second proviso to section 35(2) was read as enlarging the time for the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to act only where a valid direction under section 34 could otherwise operate, and not as enlarging the Commissioner's own revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under section 34; the matter fell within section 35 and the action was time-barred. The answer was in the negative, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power cannot be used to reopen escaped income tax assessments in circumvention of the specific reassessment provision and its limitation period; a direction under revision must remain within the statutory scheme governing escaped assessment.

---