← All Phrases

“Section 263(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 263Section 263(1)736 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 263(1) is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 263(1)

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT
67 ITR 84 · 1968 · Supreme Court
616
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 802 · 1997 · Supreme Court
568
citing judgments

Expenditure that provides an enduring benefit should be amortized over its useful life, not allowed as a deduction in a single year, to prevent a distorted picture of profits. Specifically, premium paid on debentures for their issue should be amortized on a straight-line method over the life of the debentures.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

Subramanian and Anr. v. Siemens India Ltd. and Anr.
156 ITR 11 · 1985 · High Court
541
citing judgments

When there is a conflict between the decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts, the view that favors the assessee should be preferred.

Judgments citing Section 263(1)

Acc Mineral Resources Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 2687/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Acc Minerals Resources Limited Principal Commissioner Of Income 121, Cement House, Maharshi Karve Tax, Mumbai – 400 001. Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaact2214N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually Appear) Respondent By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -1 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, Impugned Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Passed By Pcit-1, Mumbai Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Pcit-1, Mumbai Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 20.04.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact That The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Has Already Gone Through Issue

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld. DR further relied on the amendment brought about to Explanation 2 Clause (a) of Section 263(1) of the Act, where any assessment made without conducting inquiry or verification, relief allowed without inquiry would hold the assessment order erroneous

Sanjiv Soshil Mehta, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(2), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Income-tax – 1, Mumbai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-- recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only

Shah Rakesh Bhikhabhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

assessment cannot be taken into consideration by him Moreover, in view of the clear words used in Clause (b) of the explanation to Section 263(1), it has to be held that while calling for and examining the record of any proceeding Under Section 263(1

M/S. Canvas Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2416/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roym/S. Canvas Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C-152, Nirman Vihar, Ward-5(3), New Delhi-92 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc4708E Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. V. S. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54FSection 68

power under Section 263 of the Act is not exercisable under certain http://www.judis.nic.in circumstances. In this regard, we refer to Section 263(1) explanation 1(c), which reads as follows: “Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue 263(1)... (a)... M/s. Canvas Developers Pvt. Ltd (b)... (c)Where any order

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Supreme Court held as under : 21 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 “(i) that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263(1) of the Act was not only unwarranted but also illegal; he contended that mere loss of tax could not be treated as prejudicial to the interests ... resulted in loss of tax it was also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Act by the Commissioner was justified and legal. He further submitted that the second contention was not open to the appellant as the basic

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for

ITA 609/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

Supreme Court held as under : * ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 “(i) that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263(1) of the Act was not only unwarranted but also illegal; he contended that mere loss of tax could not be treated as prejudicial to the interests ... resulted in loss of tax it was also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Act by the Commissioner was justified and legal. He further submitted that the second contention was not open to the appellant as the basic

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. "The phrase ''prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. "The phrase ''prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. "The phrase ''prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. "The phrase ''prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing

Anunta Technology Management Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2407/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailanunta Technology Management Services Ltd., Level – 2, Block – 6, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Goregaon East, S.O. Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400063 Pan : Aakca6159M V/S Dcit – 4(1)(1), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee By : Shri K.K. Ved Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

keep the issue alive, exercised the powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act by invoking provision of Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act to contend that the claim for ESOP expenses has been allowed without proper enquiry/verification by the Assessing Officer. In this regard ... were already on record and therefore, the question of further enquiry/verification did not arise. Secondly, on perusal of contents of the notice under Section 263(1) of the Act, as reproduced in paragraph 2 of the order impugned, we find that the Ld. PCIT had issued notice under Section 263

Ttec India Customer Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Ttec India Customer Solutions Pr.Commissioner Of Private Limited, Ttec Ahmedabad Vs. Income Tax-3 Opp: L.J.College Vejalpur Off: Sg Road, Makarba Ahmedabad. Fatewadi Bo, Fatewadi Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaccm 1005A (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vishal Kabra, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

PCIT concluded that the assessment order was passed without proper enquiry or verification and accordingly attracted the mischief of Explanation 2 to section 263(1). The PCIT thus set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order after conducting necessary enquiry and verification

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but it is prejudicial to the revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act [See The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). ITA No.344/LKW/2024 Page 20 of 22 Para

Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3113/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-- recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only

Technoblast Mining Corporation, Raigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.307/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2Nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 Pan: Aaeft5992Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

erroneous was irresistible. Therefore, the High Court had rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction 6ythe Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified" And in the case of Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon [2005] 95 ITD 326 (PUNE) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH

The Ruby Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central) - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3035/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) The Ruby Mills Limited Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 11Th Floor, Ruby House A, Vs (Central)-5, Aayakar Bhawan, J.K. Sawant Marg, Dadar West, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400028. [Pan No. Aaact0220G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

interpretation of Section 263of the Income Tax Act, it is observed and held that in order to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263(1)of theIncome tax Act, the Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised ... prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It is further observed that if one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act. ***’. 27. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of enquiry by the AO with respect

Hansa Jitendra Haria, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

1, Nagpur (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay). 6. It may be mentioned here that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under- "Explanation 2.- For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cricle -Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2956/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-- recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only

Raghav Bahl, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1, Noida

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 1835/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraa.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 A.Y. 2017-18 A.Y. 2019-20 A.Y. 2018-19

Section 24Section 263Section 263(1)

case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein it was held as under: "A bare reading of section 263(1) makes it clear that the pre-requisite to exercise of Jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order ... prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue-recourse cannot be had to section 263(1). There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer