JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J.
1. The petitioner, Messrs. Ram Laxman Janki Trust, is the assessee. Aggrieved against the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for the assessment years 1952-53, 1953-54, 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 the petitioner took the matter to higher authorities. For the assessment year 1952-53 it filed an appeal before the Tribunal. For subsequent assessment years the trust on April 12, 1958, filed revision petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 33A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In paragraph 7 of the revision petitions it was stated by the assessee that it had filed an appeal for the assessment year 1952-53 before the Tribunal and the revision petitions be taken up for disposal after the decision of that appeal. Presumably for this reason the Commissioner did not take up the revision petitions for disposal till November, 1971. On 6th November, 1971, the assessee filed an application before the Commissioner for the amendment of the revision petitions. It prayed that paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the revision petitions be deleted and a ground be added as paragraph 8 of the revision petitions. The amendment application was occasioned because of the decision of the appeal by the Tribunal. In the appeal the Tribunal had held that the income assessed in the hands of the trust was liable to be assessed in the hands of the joint Hindu family because the trust itself was invalid. This decision of the Tribunal dated 20th February, 1967, appears to" have become final. Consequently, the trust made the aforesaid amendment application seeking to raise the same question in the revision petitions which have been finally decided by the Tribunal in the appeal for the assessment year 1952-53. The Commissioner decided the revision petitions on 30th March, 1972. In paragraph 4 of his order he has stated that the amendment petitions were rejected. It does not appear from the order or from the counter-affidavit that a separate reasoned order was passed dismissing the amendment applications. The impugned order of the Commissioner disposing of the revision petitions does not indicate the grounds upon which the applications for amendment were rejected. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Commissioner it has been stated that the amendment application was dismissed because it sought to raise fresh questions and fresh disputes which were not raised either before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal or in the revision petitions itself.
2. Aggrieved, the trust has come to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the order of the Commissioner be quashed.
3. It is evident that the amendment application was occasioned because of the order passed by the Tribunal on 20th February, 1967, deciding the trust's appeal for the assessment year 1952-53. In the revision petitions the factual as well as the legal position was identical to that obtaining in the case for the assessment year 1952-53. The revision petitions were filed on or about 12th April, 1958, long prior to the decision of the appeal by the Tribunal. The trust acquired a cause of action for the amendment of the revision petitions only after the decision of the Tribunal. It cannot hence be said that the assessee was guilty of raising a fresh point for the first time in the revision petitions without raising them at the appellate stage when the matter was decided by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Similar was the situation when the revision applications were filed. In our opinion, in the context of the facts and the circumstances of the case, the amendment application ought to have been allowed and the point raised therein ought to have been considered on merits.
4. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders of the Commissioner dated 30th March, 1972, disposing of the revision petitions are quashed. The matter is sent back to the Commis sioner for the disposal of the revision petitions in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The petitioner will be entitled to its costs.