TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the revisionary order under section 263 could be sustained when the Assessing Officer had examined the claim for excise duty and interest and adopted one possible view in allowing the deduction. (ii) Whether the revisionary jurisdiction was barred because the very issues had already been considered and decided in appeal by the first appellate authority, attracting merger under the Explanation to section 263.
Issue (i): Whether the revisionary order under section 263 could be sustained when the Assessing Officer had examined the claim for excise duty and interest and adopted one possible view in allowing the deduction.
Analysis: The power under section 263 is available only when the order of the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An order is not erroneous merely because the Commissioner prefers a deeper or different enquiry. Where the Assessing Officer has made enquiries, considered the material and taken one of the possible views, the order cannot be revised simply because the Commissioner disagrees. The excise duty payment was covered by section 43B(a), which permits deduction on actual payment basis, and the interest issue had also been examined during assessment. The record showed enquiry, application of mind and a conscious decision by the Assessing Officer.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 could not be sustained on merits against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisionary jurisdiction was barred because the very issues had already been considered and decided in appeal by the first appellate authority, attracting merger under the Explanation to section 263.
Analysis: Clause (c) of the Explanation to section 263 extends the Commissioner's revisional power only to matters not considered and decided in appeal. Here, the excise duty and interest claims were examined and decided in appellate proceedings. Once those matters stood adjudicated in appeal, the assessment on those points merged with the appellate order to the extent contemplated by the statute, and the Commissioner could not again revise those very matters under section 263.
Conclusion: The revision was barred on the ground of merger and could not be exercised on the issues already decided in appeal.
Final Conclusion: The revisional order was held unsustainable both because the assessment was not erroneous on the issues examined and because the disputed matters had already been decided in appeal, so the assessee succeeded and the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 can be invoked only when the assessment order is simultaneously erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, and it cannot be used to revise issues already examined in appeal or to substitute a different view where the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view after enquiry.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
