https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286696 An order refusing to revise under Section 33 may itself be prejudicial if it confirms the assessee's adverse position, so a reference under Section 66(2) remains competent. The assessee was also held entitled to relief under Section 25(3) because the record showed discontinuance of the profession and sufficient material to trigger enquiry into the statutory exemption. The claim was not barred by limitation, as no express limitation applied before the 1939 amendment and a later inserted time bar could not defeat the accrued right. The Commissioner's statutory discretion under Section 33 could not be legally controlled by the Central Board of Revenue. en-us Thu, 05 Feb 1942 00:00:00 +0630 Wed, 11 Mar 2020 18:44:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286696 An order refusing to revise under Section 33 may itself be prejudicial if it confirms the assessee's adverse position, so a reference under Section 66(2) remains competent. The assessee was also held entitled to relief under Section 25(3) because the record showed discontinuance of the profession and sufficient material to trigger enquiry into the statutory exemption. The claim was not barred by limitation, as no express limitation applied before the 1939 amendment and a later inserted time bar could not defeat the accrued right. The Commissioner's statutory discretion under Section 33 could not be legally controlled by the Central Board of Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 05 Feb 1942 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286696