https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190839 Section 33B(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed as a limitation on the Commissioner's revisional power when acting suo motu in the first instance, but not as barring a fresh revisional order passed after the Tribunal had set aside an earlier order. The Court read the provision in the context of the statutory scheme and held that a set-aside revisional order is not a continuing order for all purposes. That construction avoided an absurd result that would make compliance with appellate directions impossible merely because time had elapsed since the original assessment. The limitation therefore did not apply to the subsequent order, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 06 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:02:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190839 Section 33B(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed as a limitation on the Commissioner's revisional power when acting suo motu in the first instance, but not as barring a fresh revisional order passed after the Tribunal had set aside an earlier order. The Court read the provision in the context of the statutory scheme and held that a set-aside revisional order is not a continuing order for all purposes. That construction avoided an absurd result that would make compliance with appellate directions impossible merely because time had elapsed since the original assessment. The limitation therefore did not apply to the subsequent order, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 06 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190839