Consolidated revisional notice under income-tax law may cover multiple years if hearing and natural justice are preserved.

A consolidated revisional notice and order under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 could validly cover multiple assessment years because the provision required only that the assessee be given a real opportunity of being heard; it did not prescribe a separate statutory notice for each year. In the absence of any mandatory procedural form, a consolidated revisional order was acceptable so long as no prejudice or breach of natural justice was shown. The text also notes that reliance on the assessee's initial capital in the first year did not invalidate the revisional order where other stated grounds independently supported revisional action for the remaining years.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a consolidated notice and consolidated revisional order under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, covering several assessment years, were valid in law; (ii) whether the Commissioner's revisional order could be sustained when the assessee's initial capital in the first year was relied upon as one of the grounds.

Issue (i): whether a consolidated notice and consolidated revisional order under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, covering several assessment years, were valid in law.

Analysis: Section 33B required the Commissioner to call for and examine the record and, before passing an order prejudicial to the assessee, to afford an opportunity of being heard. Unlike section 34, the provision did not insist on a separate statutory notice for each year. A consolidated notice covering several years was therefore sufficient where the assessee had the opportunity to meet the case for each year. In the absence of any prescribed procedure under the Act or the Rules for the manner of revisional proceedings, the Commissioner could adopt a consolidated order so long as no prejudice or violation of natural justice was shown.

Conclusion: The consolidated notice and consolidated revisional order were valid, and this issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the Commissioner's revisional order could be sustained when the assessee's initial capital in the first year was relied upon as one of the grounds.

Analysis: The revisional order rested not on a single ground but on a basic ground that the assessments were erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, together with several supporting grounds applicable to all the years in question. The fact that one supporting ground related to the first assessment year did not destroy the order, because the remaining grounds independently sustained revisional action for the later years and were specifically included in the notice and order.

Conclusion: The order was not vitiated on this ground, and this issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by upholding the revisional jurisdiction for the later assessment years while rejecting the Revenue's contention on the separate validity issue for the first year, resulting in a mixed outcome on the questions referred.

Ratio Decidendi: A consolidated revisional notice and order under section 33B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, may validly cover multiple assessment years if the assessee is afforded a real opportunity of being heard and no prejudice or breach of natural justice is shown; the absence of a prescribed procedural form does not invalidate the order.

---