https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7230 In a quasi-judicial revision under section 33A(2), the Commissioner was not bound to grant an oral hearing or call for further material before rejecting the revision, because the petitioner could place all supporting material with the application and no undisclosed adverse material was shown to have been relied upon. The absence of a separate hearing therefore did not vitiate the revisional order. The further contention that the assessment should have been based on the market value of the gold patlas on the date of partial partition also failed, as the record did not show that this point had been specifically pressed before the Commissioner. A writ challenge could not succeed on a point not properly raised below, and the revisional order was upheld. en-us Tue, 10 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7230 In a quasi-judicial revision under section 33A(2), the Commissioner was not bound to grant an oral hearing or call for further material before rejecting the revision, because the petitioner could place all supporting material with the application and no undisclosed adverse material was shown to have been relied upon. The absence of a separate hearing therefore did not vitiate the revisional order. The further contention that the assessment should have been based on the market value of the gold patlas on the date of partial partition also failed, as the record did not show that this point had been specifically pressed before the Commissioner. A writ challenge could not succeed on a point not properly raised below, and the revisional order was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7230