Revisional jurisdiction requires independent reasons, and tax revision can proceed against a deceased assessee's legal heir.

A revisional order under section 33B is valid only if the Commissioner independently applies mind, records reasons, and concludes that the Income-tax Officer's order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; an order made without such reasoning is vitiated. Revision may also be maintained against the legal heir of a deceased assessee where the statute treats the heir as liable for the deceased's tax and notice is properly issued to the person answerable for that liability. The third question was left unanswered, and the text records that the revisional order was struck down on the first issue while revision against the legal heir was upheld on the second.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Commissioner exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 33B could sustain an order without recording independent reasons for treating the Income-tax Officer's order as prejudicial to the interests of revenue. (ii) Whether proceedings under section 33B could be taken against the legal heirs of a deceased assessee.

Issue (i): The revisional power under section 33B is quasi-judicial in character and can be exercised only when the Commissioner independently forms the view that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The statutory phrase "if he considers" requires the Commissioner to apply his own mind to the relevant facts and record reasons for that satisfaction. An order passed without such independent reasoning is vitiated.

Conclusion: The first question was answered in the negative; the revisional order was invalid for want of independent reasons.

Issue (ii): Section 33B requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee, and the definition of assessee includes a person liable to pay tax in respect of the deceased. Although proceedings against a dead person are generally a nullity, statutory provisions governing tax liability after death permit the revisional power to be exercised against the person liable to pay the tax on behalf of the deceased. The legal heirs can therefore be proceeded against where notice is issued to the person answerable for the deceased's tax liability.

Conclusion: The second question was answered in the affirmative; proceedings under section 33B could be taken against the legal heirs in the stated circumstances.

Final Conclusion: The reference was disposed of by striking down the revisional order on the first issue while upholding the maintainability of revision against the deceased assessee's legal heir on the second issue, with the third question left unanswered.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional authority exercising quasi-judicial powers must record its own reasons for concluding that an assessment order is prejudicial to the revenue, and tax revision proceedings may be maintained against the legal heir of a deceased assessee where the statute makes the heir liable to pay the deceased's tax and notice is duly issued.

---