This is a PPT presentation on Commissioner's powers under section 263 of the indian income tax Act to revise income tax assessments done by the A.O

1. REVISION OF ORDERS BY
CIT U/S 263 – An Overview
Presented by Subash Agarwal,Advocate
dvocate

2. 1.Dissecting the provision of
Section 263(1)!!!
1.1 Dissecting the provision of Section
263(1)!!!
(a) The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) may call for and
examine the records of any proceedings.

3. (b) CIT may exercise the power of revision only if he
considers any order passed by the A.O. is –
(i) Erroneous and
(ii) Prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
(c) He may give an opportunity of being heard.
(d) He may –
(i) Enhance assessment.
(ii) Modify assessment.
(iii) Cancel assessment or
(iv) Direct fresh assessment.

4. 2. Examination of Records by CIT
Whether
(a) “Records” existing at the time of original
proceedings???
(b) “Records” existing at the time of examination
by CIT???

5. 2.1 As per Explanation (b) below section
263(1) -
“Records” mean –
Records available at the time of examination
by the CIT.

6. 2.2 Supporting Judgement
CWT vs. Smt. Poolwati Agarwal 276 ITR
623 (All.)
Ratio
Where WTO had valued the property at Rs. 50,809/-
and the DVO’s report received subsequently valued the
property at Rs. 1,52,000/-, CIT was justified in considering
the DVO’s report available at the time of examination of
records by him and cancelling the W.T. assessment.
Following –
CIT vs. Shree Manjunatheswara Packing Products 231
ITR 53(SC) (same issue)

7. 3. Can only assessment
orders be revised???

8. 3.1 No.
The language used in
Section 263(1) is “any
order”.

9. 3.2 Other Instances where CIT can exercise
revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263-
(a)An order recording the partition of HUF.
(b) An order dropping penalty proceedings
u/s 271(1)(c).
(c) An order dropping re-opening
proceedings u/s 147.

10. 4. Orders which cannot be revised
(a) Order cannot be revised merely on the basis
of revenue audit objection
There should be an indication that the CIT
was himself satisfied about the “ error” in
the order under revision.
Please refer:
Sohana Woolen Mill 296 ITR 238 (P & H)
Following:-
India & Eastern Newspaper Society 119 ITR
996 (SC)

11. (b)Where both the conditions
viz.,-
(i) Order is “erroneous”
(ii) Order is “prejudicial to the interest of
revenue”
are not cumulatively satisfied.
Please refer:
(a)Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.’s case 243 ITR 83(SC)
(b) Gabriel (I) Ltd.’s case 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)

12. (c) Where two views are possible
Examples
(i)Relief claimed u/s 10B on exports. There was
delayed receipts of export profits.
Held, interpretation possible in more than one way
Sak Soft Ltd.’s case 298 ITR 63 (Mad.)
(ii) A.O. allowed depreciation on goodwill
Held, two views are possible on the issue and the
A.O. accepted one view.

13. 5. CIT must record a categorical finding
That the order under revision is-
(a) Erroneous and
(b) Prejudicial to the revenue’s interest.
Case Laws
 There must be material to come to such conclusion.
Pl.refer : George Williamson’s case 250 ITR 747 (Gau.)
 There must be a finding recorded.
Pl.refer: Jai Mewar Wine Contractors’ case 251 ITR 785 (Raj.)

14. 6. CIT cannot substitute his own judgement for that of
the A.O.’s
(a) Bongaigaon Refinery & Petro’s case 287 ITR 120
(Gau.)
 Held, CIT cannot substitute his judgement for that of
the A.O. even if he holds an opinion different from the
A.O.
 CIT cannot arrogate to himself a status to surrogate
the other authorities and supplant their roles.
(vide para 12 and para 17)

15. (b) Infosys Technologies Ltd.’s case 103 ITD 399
(Bang.)
Held, IF the A.O. has made necessary enquiry and arrived at
the satisfaction, though not clearly mentioned in the
assessment order, such order cannot be revised.
(vide last para at page 430)
Also see
 Gabriel India 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)
 Board of Control for Cricket 278 ITR (AT) 83 (Mum.)
 CIT vs. Girdharilal 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)

16. (c)CIT vs. Valliammal 230 ITR 695 (Mad.)
Held, in the absence of any definite conclusion arrived
at by the CIT as to erroneous or prejudicial nature of the
assessment order passed by the ITO, he could not set aside
the assessment on the ground that verification of account
was needed after obtaining clarification from the assessee.

17. (d) CIT vs. Mulchand Bagri’s case 108 CTR 206 (Cal)
In the instant case, the assessee earned profit to the tune of Rs. 16,237 on
the sale of some silver. This was claimed as exempt on the ground that the
profit was on the sale of silver utensils which constituted 'personal effect' of
the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT initiated revision proceedings u/s. 263
on the ground that no enquiry was made in the course of assessment in
respect of sale of silver utensils.
Held, since the Tribunal found that the ITO had made an enquiry
about the sale of silver utensils, the Commissioner was not right in
coming to the conclusion that the order passed by the ITO was
prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

18. (7) Adverse view
In Mangilal Didwania 286 ITR 126 (Raj.), it was
held that where the assessment was made in
undue haste and without proper investigation,
the same was liable to be revised by CIT.

19. (8)Notice u/s 263
8.1 Invalid Notice
Issue of notice u/s 263 is not a mere procedural
requirement. It must bear the signature of CIT &
seal of office.
Sattandas Mohandas Sidhi 230 ITR 591 (M.P)
No signature, seal of office of CIT
Details not specified in notice as to why the
order of A.O. is erroneous and prejudicial.
Held- Order u/s 263 is invalid.
Satish Kr. Keshri 104 ITD 382 (Pat.)
(Vide para 13)

20. 8.2 Proper Service Of Notice Necessary
No proper service on assessee.
Held- 263 order not valid.
Remender Nath Ghosh 82 ITR 888 (SC)
 Where notice was returned unserved- “left
without address” – served on Power of Attorney
holder – No more valid holder – No proper
service of notice.
Held – Order Quashed
CIT vs. Girdharilal 147 ITR 379 (Raj.)

21. 8.3 Contrary View
Defect may affect the legality of order but not the
existence of jurisdiction of CIT. The ITAT has
the right to remand the matter to CIT.

22. Fancy Dyeing & Printing Works V. Income-
tax Officer 166 ITR 54 (CAL)
 Smt. Anantkuverba (Legal Representative
Of H. H. Maharaja Sri Natwarsinghji) V.
Commissioner Of Wealth-tax. 201 ITR
42(GUJ.)

23. Commissioner Of Income-tax, West Bengal
Ii V. Electro House 82 ITR 824 (SC)
“All that we have to see is whether before assuming
jurisdiction the Commissioner was required to issue a
notice and if he was so required what that notice
should have contained ? In our judgement no notice
was required to be issued by the Commissioner before
assuming jurisdiction to proceed under section 33B.
Therefore the question what notice should contain
does not arise for consideration”

24. 9. Where assessment has been framed u/s 147
Can the order be revised on the ground that
proper enquiries were not done in respect of
items not connected with “reasons to belief”?
ANSWER - NO

25. In the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT
336 ITR 136 (Del.), it was held as under-
The legislature could not be presumed to have intended to give
blanket powers to the Assessing Officer that on assuming
jurisdiction under Section 147 regarding assessment or
reassessment of escaped income, he would keep on making
roving inquiry and thereby including different items of income
not connected or related with the reasons to believe, on the
basis of which he assumed jurisdiction. For every new issue
coming before Assessing Officer during the course of
proceedings of assessment or reassessment of escaped
income, and which he intends to take into account, he would
be required to issue a fresh notice under Section 148.

26. 10. Whether the order passed by CIT u/s 263
itself is challengeable before the higher
forum???
YES.
It can be challenged before the ITAT and only
Rs. 500/- is payable as Appeal Fees.

27. Thanks!!!
Namaskar!!!
You can contact me at-
subash_sushma@yahoo.in
Visit my Blog at–
www.subashagarwal.blogspot.in