“revision u/s 263”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263521 judgments

The decision most relied on for revision u/s 263 is CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200), cited in 264 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on revision u/s 263

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan

384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court

264

citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

321 ITR 92 · 2010 · High Court

194

citing judgments

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.

309 ITR 67 · 2009 · High Court

149

citing judgments

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

Babulal C. Borana v. ITO

282 ITR 251 · 2006 · High Court

138

citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper inquiries or apply his mind to relevant issues, such as the genuineness of purchases when corresponding sales are accepted, often leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

341 ITR 434 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd.

212 Taxmann 184 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

When an Assessing Officer conducts an inquiry and considers the assessee's disclosures, the Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise the assessment on grounds of inadequate inquiry or a mere difference of opinion. The absence of a detailed discussion on an issue in the assessment order does not automatically mean the Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind.

Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Surat-2 v. Shreeji Prints (P.) Ltd.

130 Taxmann.com 294 · 2021 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer, after due enquiry and verification, does not render an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for the purpose of revision under Section 263, thereby limiting the scope of revisional powers.

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports

333 ITR 214 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment order is not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for invoking Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two possible views, even if the Commissioner of Income-tax disagrees with that view. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' must be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous'.

Judgments citing revision u/s 263

Smt. Parminder Kaur Brar, Kotkapura vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 72/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263oSection 54

accordingly is a course of action unknown to the law. The AO cannot usurp the power of Pr. CIT and recommend a revision u/s 263 of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and as per theprovisions of section 263

Ga Infra Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

assessee vide letter dated 13.03.2023 to explain as to why the assessment order passed by NeAC on 22.02.2021 may not be revised u/s 263 of the Act and 5 GA Infra Private Limited may not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3.4 In response ... view keeping in mind the assessee’s submissions during reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Similar is the view

Chemester Food Industries P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3707/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri Ranjan Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 47

adverse inference. Therefore, the Assessment Orders passed by the Ld. AO could not be considered erroneous and thus, was out of purview of revision u/s 263 of the Act as the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act cannot be assumed by Ld. PCIT for making roving enquiries ... been addressed to and decided is whether the order framed in the name of a non existing entity can be subject to revision u/s 263 of the Act. 21. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 3707/DEL/2019 is allowed. The order is pronounced

Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7126/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanvk-Vk-La- 7125@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2013&14½ Vk-Vk-La- 7126@Eaqcbz@2018 ¼Fu-Oa- 2014&15½ M/S Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd. 11/12, Raghuvanshi Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400 013 ..... Vihykfkhz/Appellant Pan No. Aadca9872E Cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle– 5(3) Room No.1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, ..... Izfroknh/Respondent Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

addition in respect of any new source of income. The Act has provided different canons viz reassessment u/s 147 of the Act and revision u/s 263 of the Act to take care of such errors and income escaping assessment. The Department has to invoke right provisions

Ahmednagar Investments Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7125/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal izfroknh }kjk@For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

M/S Aadhar Associates, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 300/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

made revision invoking Explanation 2 to section 263. After a thorough analysis, the Hon’ble Bench has held that in such circumstances, revision u/s 263 cannot be done. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are reproduced below: “5. The learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages

M/S Torrent Roofing System, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

thus proceedings u/s 263 of the Act cannot be initiated in such a case. Further, an assessment order should not be subject to revision u/s 263 merely because another view is possible on the issue decided by the AO. I would like to draw your kind attention to following judgments

Jubilant Pharmova Limited (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Sciences Limited), Gajraula vs. Pr. CIT Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1071/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. N.K Choudhryjubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. The Pr. Cit, (Erstwhile Jubilant Life Bareilly, Sciences Limited) Uttar Pradesh 244 001 Bhartiagram, Gajraula Jyotiba Phoolay Nagar, Amroha, Up – 244 223 Pan No. Aabcv 0200 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri K.M Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Bareilly Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Jubilant Pharmova Limited Vs. Pcit 2 3. The Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Chemicals, Chemical Intermediates, Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients & Generation Of Power. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y 2016-17 On 28.11.2016 Declaring Total Of Income At Rs. 54,63,38,840/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(3) Vide Order Dated 17.02.2020 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs. 95,52,38,865/-.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

assessment and directing a fresh assessment.” 12. The reading of the above provision makes it very clear that the power of suo motu revision u/s 263(1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein exist. Two circumstances must

Bimla Devi, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 914/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Bimla Devi, Vs Ito, H.No.398/12, Parav Mohalla, Ward 1, Samalkha, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana – 124 001. Haryana – 132101. Pan: Aalca0777A

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

lakhs by the assessee . Once a plausible view has been taken by the ld. AO, the same cannot be subjected to revision u/s 263 of the Act. The law is very well settled on this issue by the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial

Jagdish Chandra Suwalka, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Range-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 376/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 44A

same reason section 275 (1)(b) is also not applicable in as much as the assessment order was not subjected to Revision u/s 263 or u/s 264. Now coming to section 275(1)(c), we find that two types of limitations are provided therein viz, (1) expiry of the financial

The ACIT, Central-2, Indore vs. M/S. Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd., Indore

ITA 1358/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit (Central)-2, Shakti Pumps (India) Ltd. Indore 226, Shastri Market, बनाम/ M.G. Road, Vs. Indore (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent / Assessee) Pan: Aaecs 5027 L Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti & Vijay Bansal, Ars Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 / 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.04.2023

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

rejection. 11. We also find that the order of ITAT in ITA No. 377 & 378/Ind/2013 dated 26.07.2016 was although in the matter involving revision u/s 263 yet there are certain vital facts which have convergence in the current-year as well, namely (i) only Submersible Pump was manufactured

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

view keeping in mind the assessee’s submissions during reassessment proceedings. This being the case, the assessment order could not be subjected to revision u/s 263 and the action of Ld. Pr.CIT in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Similar is the view ... dated 10.03.2021 to explain as to why the assessment order passed by the ITO Ward-5(3), Jaipur on 05.08.2019 may not be revised u/s 263 and may not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the assessment order was passed mechanically without application

M/S M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 106/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S M.P. Warehousing Pr. Cit-1 & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Office Complex, Block-1, Gautam Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aadcm 7742 B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

through the relevant material on record. It can be seen from para 4 of the ld. CIT‟s order that: "A proposal for revision u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 was received from DCIT(IT)-1, Pune through the Jt.CIT(IT), Pune vide letter No. Pn/Jt.CIT(IT)/ 263/2016-17/61 dated ... jurisdiction on the CIT to revise an assessment order which he considers erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The process of revision u/s 263 of the Act initiates only when the CIT calls for and examines the record of any proceeding under this Act and considers that

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 194CSection 263

presumption and assumption. 8. In the case of “CIT V Munjal Casting”, (Supra) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed on validity of revision U/s 263 of the act that Where the AO having taken a possible view, CIT cannot acquire revisional jurisdiction under s. 263 merely because another view ... Similarly, in another case, “CIT V Sohana Woollen Mills”, (Supra) the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court observed on Erroneous and prejudicial order for revision U/s 263 of the act that when the AO taken a possible view Mere audit objection, and merely because a different view can be taken

The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax-2(1)Bhilai, Bhilai(Cg) vs. M/S Sms Shivnath Infrasstructure Pvt Ltd., Durg, Durg(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 87/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.87/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Acit-2(1), Bhilai Vs M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.107/Rpr/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Vs Pr.Cit-2, Raipur Pvt Ltd.,Toll Plaza, Near Dhamdhanaka, Durg. Pan No. :Aadcs 2258 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

also reproduced in the assessment order. 15. Afterwards, the appellant received Show Cause Notice dt. 29.2.2016 U/s 263 of the Act proposing revision U/s 263 on the following grounds: 1. 'The P&L A/c for the said assessment year reveals that the interest

M/S Sms Shivnath Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Durg(Cg) vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Raipur (Cg)

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 107/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv. & MukeshFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 36Section 80ISection 80l

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Champ Info Software vs. Pr.CIT in ITA No. 2799/Del/2018 dated 21.06.2019 submits that when cash deposits were examined in original assessment proceedings revision u/s 263 is not permissible. 12. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also made written synopsis/arguments which are as under: - “This appeal is against the Section 263 order

Ruchi Jain, M/S Darsh Marketing, Ratlam vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 76/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

have any such order u/s 143(3) dated 22.10.2019 for A.Y. 2012- 13. Therefore, your above referred notice of revision u/s 263 is not valid because as per explanation 2 of section 263 there has to be an order passed by the Assessing Officer and therefore the notice aforesaid ... liable to be quashed and the proceedings of revision u/s 263 are liable to be dropped. For other matters stated in your notice in para (2) & (3), my point wise submissions/representations follow this letter.” 12. Ld. AR carried us to the aforesaid reply of assessee line by line and demonstrated

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

facts are not disputed that in this case, the Assessment Order passed u/s 147 / 143 dt. 12.12.2019 has been subjected to revision u/s 263 by the Ld. CIT. A Notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2019 for A.Y. 2012- 13 under consideration, and reasons to believe are recorded ... subjected re-assessment order dated 30.03.2022 subjected to revision, is completely non- existent being legally invalid and therefore the same could not be revised u/s 263. Other additions than what was stated in the Reasons, could not be made as already submitted in detail in this written submission

Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

filed and assessee is also entitled to question the order passed by Revisional Authority also on the ground that power of revision u/s 263 of the Act ought not to have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case and contend before the Tribunal that order passed