https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20026 Revision under section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act was confined to the specific orders covered by sections 76, 77 and 79, so an appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on an application under section 34 was not revisable on that basis. The assessee's challenge to the assessment also failed because repeated opportunities were given to produce evidence and objections, but he did not cooperate or substantiate the alleged lease arrangement. In those circumstances, the best judgment assessment was justified, and the appellate affirmation disclosed no illegality, unreasonableness, or injustice warranting interference. en-us Wed, 10 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:56:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20026 Revision under section 78 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act was confined to the specific orders covered by sections 76, 77 and 79, so an appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on an application under section 34 was not revisable on that basis. The assessee's challenge to the assessment also failed because repeated opportunities were given to produce evidence and objections, but he did not cooperate or substantiate the alleged lease arrangement. In those circumstances, the best judgment assessment was justified, and the appellate affirmation disclosed no illegality, unreasonableness, or injustice warranting interference. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Nov 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20026