Revision under section 263 barred after DTDRS settlement, where the same assessment dispute had already been concluded.

Revision under section 263 was held not to be maintainable where the underlying assessment dispute had already been settled under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 and Form 5 had been issued. The text states that the scheme conferred immunity against reopening the same controversy through revisionary proceedings, so the Principal Commissioner could not treat the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial on the same facts. It also notes that the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view after inquiry and that revision could not rest on a mere change of opinion. The settled dispute covered both the addition and the related jurisdictional challenge, so section 263 could not be invoked again.

---

---

Issues: Whether revision under section 263 could be sustained when the assessment dispute had been settled under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, and whether the Principal Commissioner could still treat the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue on the same set of facts.

Analysis: The assessment had been completed after inquiry, with addition made on account of purchases treated as bogus and profit estimated thereon. The assessee had thereafter opted for settlement under the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, and the dispute was concluded by issuance of Form 5. In view of the immunity attached to the settlement scheme, the same controversy could not be reopened through revisionary proceedings. The Court also noted that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was a possible view and that revision could not be founded on a mere change of opinion. Since the settled dispute covered the addition as well as the connected challenge to jurisdiction, invoking section 263 on the same matter was not justified.

Conclusion: Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was not maintainable on the facts, and the assessee succeeded.

---