Revisional hearing and new plea rules limit tax challenges where written material sufficed and fresh valuation arguments were barred.

A revisional power under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, though judicial in nature, did not require a mandatory oral hearing where the statute and rules allowed decision on the written revision material alone; the challenge on that ground failed because no prejudice was shown. A valuation plea that the surplus should be taken at market value on the date of partial partition could not be raised for the first time before the High Court, since it had not been urged before the income-tax authorities below; that ground also failed. The assessment challenge was rejected in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a revision under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Commissioner was bound to afford an oral hearing before deciding the revision; (ii) Whether the assessee could raise for the first time before the High Court the plea that the surplus should be valued at market value on the date of partial partition.

Issue (i): Whether, in a revision under section 33A(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Commissioner was bound to afford an oral hearing before deciding the revision.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction is judicial in nature, but the statute and the rules did not prescribe a mandatory oral hearing. The assessee had the opportunity to state his grievance in the memorandum of revision, and a revision could be decided on that material alone. On the facts, the matter was simple and no prejudice from the absence of an oral hearing was shown.

Conclusion: The requirement of an oral hearing was not mandatory, and the assessee's challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee could raise for the first time before the High Court the plea that the surplus should be valued at market value on the date of partial partition.

Analysis: The record showed that the only plea urged before the income-tax authorities was that the surplus was not taxable because it was capital gains. The valuation plea was never raised before any authority below. A party cannot ordinarily raise a new factual or mixed question for the first time in the High Court when it was not part of the proceedings below.

Conclusion: The valuation plea could not be entertained for the first time in the High Court, and this ground also failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal disclosed no merit, and the assessment-related challenge was rejected in its entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: A judicially characterised revisional power does not necessarily require an oral hearing where the statute permits decision on the written revision material alone, and a new plea not raised before the tax authorities cannot be urged for the first time in the High Court.

---