Section 263 revision upheld where limitation, merger, and lack of enquiry objections failed on the facts and record.

For limitation under section 263, the relevant date is when the revisional order is made or issued in law, and later dispatch alone does not displace the date borne on the order; the limitation objection therefore failed. The doctrine of merger did not bar revision because the prior appellate order concerned a different issue from the lack of enquiry examined in revision. An assessment passed without enquiries that ought to have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, so revision was valid on that ground. The alleged non-issue of notice under section 143(2) was not established and did not invalidate the revisional order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisionary order under section 263 was barred by limitation because it was dispatched after the date borne on the order; (ii) whether the doctrine of merger barred revision where an appellate order had already been passed on a different issue; (iii) whether the assessment order was liable to revision for lack of enquiry and consequent error causing prejudice to the Revenue; and (iv) whether the revision could be invalidated on the basis that notice under section 143(2) was allegedly not issued.

Issue (i): Whether the revisionary order under section 263 was barred by limitation because it was dispatched after the date borne on the order.

Analysis: The limitation under section 263(2) turns on the date on which the order is made or issued, that is, when it goes out of the control of the authority passing it. The mere fact that dispatch took place a few days later does not, by itself, dislodge the date appearing on the order. The assessee produced only the postal dispatch material, which was insufficient to rebut the presumption that the order was signed and issued on the date it bears.

Conclusion: The limitation plea failed and the revisionary order was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the doctrine of merger barred revision where an appellate order had already been passed on a different issue.

Analysis: The appellate proceedings had dealt with the computation and head of income, whereas the revision was founded on the Assessing Officer's failure to make proper enquiry into whether the impugned transactions constituted business income. Since the subject matter of the appellate order and the revisionary action was different, the appellate order did not absorb the issue sought to be revised.

Conclusion: The doctrine of merger did not apply and did not oust the revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment order was liable to revision for lack of enquiry and consequent error causing prejudice to the Revenue.

Analysis: An order passed without making enquiries that ought to have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revisional authority found that material facts relating to high-value and disputed property transactions had not been properly investigated. Such absence of enquiry fell within the settled grounds for revision under section 263.

Conclusion: The assessment order was validly revised on the ground of lack of enquiry.

Issue (iv): Whether the revision could be invalidated on the basis that notice under section 143(2) was allegedly not issued.

Analysis: The alleged non-issue of notice under section 143(2) was not conclusively established on the record before the Tribunal. In any event, the challenge amounted to a collateral attack on the validity of the assessment proceedings, which could not be examined in the revision appeals in the manner sought. The Tribunal also held that the plea could not defeat the revisional order on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The plea based on alleged non-issue of notice under section 143(2) was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the revisionary orders under section 263 and dismissed the assessee's appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under section 263, the relevant date is the date on which the order is made or issued in law, not the date of dispatch alone; and an assessment order passed without enquiries that ought to have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

---