“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

Shri Shashikant Bhagvanjibhai Rajpara, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2017-18 Shashikant Bhavajjibhai Rajpara Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 409, Aadarsh Plaza, Rajkot. 150 Ft. Ring Road Rajkot. Pan : Abipr 9935 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/03/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Passed By The Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Rajkot [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Pr.Cit Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short) Dated 7.2.2022 Pertaining To The Asst.Year2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Rajkot -1, Rajkot Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act, Particularly In The Light Of Reasons Stated By Him In The Show Cause Notice & In The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act & Hence The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Rajkot - 1, Rajkot Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Framed U/S 143(3)Of The Act By Holding That The Ao Has Not Properly Examined The Facts Of The Case In 2

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

assessment order on impugned issues were pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore the order u/s 143(3) could not be revised u/s 263 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdraw any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal ... above, a show cause notice dated 16-01-2022 was issued proposing to subject the assessment order of the AO to revision u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act.” SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NOTICE FOR THE HEARING M/s/Mr/Ms Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 263

PCIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. - [2018] 100 taxmann.com 358 (SC) it has been held that If AO had adopted a plausible view, revision u/s 263 not sustainable. 13 Sukhjinder Singh v. Pr. CIT 13. We have to understand that lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry ... Apex Court held that once declaration is accepted reassessment is not permissible. Accordingly, after issue of certificate in respect of tax in dispute revision u/s 263 is not permissible. Thus on this account also the action of the PCIT u/s 263 is bad and deserves to be cancelled

Arun Enterprises, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1096/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 14Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 163Section 263

attracts on the facts. It is pertinent to note that he Assessing Officer himself made a proposal to the PCIT, Ghaziabad for revision u/s 263 of tht Act which reads as under: “Madam, Sub: Proposal for revision u/s 263 of the IT Act in the case of M/S Arun Enterprises ... Laval Lund AB order dated 02.22.2021 has taken an adverse view in such a case where the Assessing Officer himself has proposed for revision u/s 263 of the Act. The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under: 5. It is trite that a power which vests exclusively

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

dated 21/12/2018 got finalized and hence the said order of the AO could not have been made basis of issue of revision u/s 263 by the PCIT-1. The PCIT-1 in the show cause notice dated 16/03/2021 had raised the issue to which a detailed reply was filed with ... 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. Following judgments are being relied by the assessee in this regard

Shri Kuldip Singh, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 38/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

unsustainable in law. 2. That the reassessment order dated 20.12.2018, being invalid for wrongful assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147/148, was not capable of revision u/s 263. 3. That the ld. ITO having taken his view in reassessment, to accept cash deposited in bank as trading transactions to assess net profit

Shri Nitin Bothra, Indore vs. He PCIT -1 Indore, Indore

ITA 108/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Nitin Bothra Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Abqpb0064J Assessee By Shri Anil Kamal Garg, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Shri Nitin Bothra Assessment year 2017-18 documents. 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

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

interest of revenue and liable to interfered u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, referring to the various judicial citations to exercise powers of Revision u/s 263 of the Act in case of lack of enquiry, the ld Revisional Authority directed the ld AO to make further enquiry

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Shri Iqbal Singh, Moga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/ASR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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

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

time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the Learned Pr. CIT- Ludhiana-1 has exercised the power of revision u/s 263 of the Act, directing the AO to carry out another investigation in the present case where the AO 3 Iqbal Singh ... Computation of Income 1-3 Assessment Order u/s 143(3) dated 16.11.2016 4-6 2. 3. Show Cause Notice of First Revision u/s 263 7-8 4. Order u/s 263 dated 25.03.2019 9-12 5. Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 dated 13-15 6. Show Cause Notice u/s

Maddimisetti Srinivasu, Tanuku vs. The Asst . Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundary

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 96/VIZ/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2022 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Maddimsetti Srinivasu Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.1-77, Peddintlamma Street Income Tax Tanuku Mandal Circle-1 Komaravaram Rajahmundry [Pan : Ctxpm3066Q]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(2)Section 48Section 54F

prima facie erroneous in law and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, proposed for revision u/s 263 of the Act and accordingly issued show cause notice dated 15.02.2022 as to why 4 ITA No.96/Viz/2022, A.Y.2017-18 Maddimsetti Srinivasu.,Komaravaram the assessment order u/s 143(3) should not be revised

Shri Rajesh Sharma, Bhopal vs. PCIT -1 Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 109/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Rajesh Sharma Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ampps4972A Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2023

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

held that error in assessment order arising by ignoring relevant material on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law- Amenable to revision u/s 263. 6. (2017) (Himachal Pradesh /(2017) 298 CTR 393, Virbhadra Singh (HUF) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Himachal Pradesh): where no inquiry was conducted

ITO Ward 62(4), New Delhi vs. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3548/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Sotta, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

erroneous even if they might be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, they cannot be made a subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act. Under these facts and circumstances we are of the view that the assessment orders in question on the issue were neither

Smt Anupama Asswa, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

invoking Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act. After a thorough analysis, the Hon'ble Bench has held that in such circumstances, revision u/s 263 of the Act cannot be done. The relevant paragraphs of the decision are reproduced below: "5. The learned AR before us filed a paper

M/S.Roads and Bridges Development Corpn of Kerala Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 33/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Ms. Remya S Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(2)Section 72(1)

Hearing : 13-01-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20-01-2023 ORDER PER PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal is against the order revision u/s. 263 of the IT Act (“the Act”) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-I for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised ... learned AO cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Hence, there is no requirement for revision u/s 263. 4. The learned Pr. CIT erred in not considering the fact that the original return of income was submitted by the company before the due date

Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Tilak Bhawan, Harda vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohal Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Harda Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Adypa 9036 B Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

during assessment-proceeding and the assessee filed details / documents. 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

Shabana Bee, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 19/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shabana Bee, Pcit-1, 786, Vishwas Indore बनाम/ Nagarbanzari, Vs. Pithampur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Asfpb 7940 R Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

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

Shri Khalid Aman, Bhopal vs. The PCIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 225/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

Accordingly appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita MadalaywalaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

therefore, the orders passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore subject to revision u/s. 263 of the Act. Kusegoan Realty Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y.2011-12 08. Notice U/s 263 was issued to the assessee on 31.01.2022. The assessee filed a return submission ... with respect to when the order dropping the penalty proceedings are passed by the learned assessing officer whether they are subject to revision u/s 263 of the act or not. This is not the issue before us, the issue before us is whether when the assessing officer has failed

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

granted depreciation to the assessee. Hence no error could be attributed in the order of the ld. AO in this regard warranting any revision u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. 5.3. It was also submitted that during the scrutiny assessments ... Admittedly, the assessment for the AY 2012-13 was neither subjected to reopening u/s 147 of the Act by the ld. AO nor revision u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT. Hence the decision with regard to grant of depreciation on goodwill in AY 2012-13 had attained