Revisional jurisdiction must be exercised judicially; a Commissioner cannot reject a revision by a mechanical reading of "may".

Section 34 revisional jurisdiction under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 was treated as a quasi-judicial power that must be exercised when the statutory conditions are satisfied and no appeal is pending. The Commissioner could not refuse to entertain a revision petition on the ground that the assessee had not pursued the appellate remedy, because the word "may" was read as imposing a duty to consider and dispose of the revision according to law, not as authorising an arbitrary or mechanical refusal. The refusal to entertain the revision was therefore unlawful, and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was bound to entertain and decide the assessee's revision petition under section 34 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, and whether refusal to do so on the ground of non-availment of the appellate remedy was lawful.

Analysis: Section 34 confers revisional jurisdiction on the Commissioner to be exercised when no appeal is pending and the statutory bars do not apply. The revisional function is quasi-judicial and is intended to afford relief where the assessee has no effective appellate remedy. In that setting, the word "may" was held to carry a mandatory duty to consider the revision and to dispose of it according to law, rather than to permit a summary refusal on an extraneous or mechanical basis.

Conclusion: The refusal to entertain the revision petition was unlawful. The assessee succeeded, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a revisional power is vested to provide relief in a quasi-judicial setting and the statutory conditions for consideration are satisfied, the authority must exercise the power judicially and cannot decline to entertain the revision on an impermissibly literal reading of "may".

---