1. The short question that arises in these cases is whether the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax was right in disallowing the claim of the petitioner to exclude the lands, based upon the deed of trust dated March 26, 1960. As pointed out by him, the assessment came to be made under Section 65 in view of the composition application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this was never a matter urged before the authority. No doubt, the powers of revision are very wide in character. But, that does not mean that the revisional authority could go beyond the case pleaded by the petitioner before the original authority and gran't him the relief. That, in effect, would mean substitution of the original authority which cannot be permitted under law. Strictly speaking, there is nothing for revision, since the point relating to the exemption on the basis of the deed of trust was never even urged before the original authority. In effect and substance what the petitioner seeks is the help of the department to correct his mistakes, in which case the original authority alone should 'have been approached for exemption under Section 4(b). Such a power cannot be exercised under the revisional jurisdiction.
2. However, if and when such an application for exemption is filed before the original authority, that will be considered on merits, uninfluenced bythe dismissal of the writ petition. The time taken during the pendency of the writ petition will also be excluded with regard to the computation of limitation, if any, in filing the application under Section 4(b). With this observation, the writ petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.