PCIT's revision order under Section 263 invalid for being mere change of opinion rather than correcting erroneous assessment

ITAT Jaipur held that PCIT's revision order u/s 263 was invalid as it failed to satisfy twin conditions of being both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interest. The tribunal found that AO had examined relevant details and passed assessment order in accordance with law regarding deduction u/s 80JJAA and adjustment u/s 143(1). Since the issues were already examined by AO and order was legally sustainable, PCIT's action constituted impermissible change of opinion rather than valid revision. The assessee's appeal was allowed and PCIT's order was vacated.

---

---

The core legal questions considered in this appeal under section 263 of the Income Tax Act ("the Act") are:

1. Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that Form 10DA, required for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA, was filed after filing the return of income and thus the deduction should have been disallowed.

2. Whether the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue for not considering an adjustment of Rs. 5,61,32,750 made by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) under section 143(1) of the Act while passing the final assessment order under section 143(3).

3. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act in a case selected for limited scrutiny, particularly when the AO had examined the issues within the scope of limited scrutiny and passed the order after due application of mind.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

Issue 1: Delay in filing Form 10DA for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 80JJAA provides deduction subject to certain conditions including filing of Form 10DA. The question is whether Form 10DA must be filed strictly along with the return of income or whether filing before completion of assessment suffices.

Various judicial precedents were cited, including Supreme Court and multiple High Court decisions, establishing that the requirement to file such forms (audit reports or prescribed forms) along with the return is directory and not mandatory. Filing before completion of assessment is sufficient compliance. Notable cases include:

• Supreme Court ruling in CIT vs. G. M. Knitting Industries (P.) Ltd. holding that filing audit report during assessment proceedings before final order is sufficient.
• High Court decisions such as ITO vs. Novelty Garments (Raj), CIT vs. Fortuna Foundation Engineers (Allahabad), CIT vs. AKS Alloys (Madras), and others consistently holding that delayed filing before assessment completion does not disentitle deduction.
• ITAT Jaipur ruling in ITO vs. Marathon India Ltd. affirming this principle.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the Form 10DA was filed on 05.02.2019, before the assessment order dated 29.03.2021, and even before receipt of notice under section 143(2). The AO, operating under the faceless assessment scheme involving multiple units (Assessment, Verification, Technical, and Review), accepted the claim after examining submissions and documents. The Tribunal held that the AO took a plausible view consistent with binding judicial precedents. Therefore, the AO's order cannot be termed erroneous or prejudicial merely because the form was not filed along with the return.

Key evidence and findings: The Form 10DA was on record before assessment completion. The AO scrutinized the claim under limited scrutiny and accepted the deduction. The PCIT's observation that the form was not filed along with the return was noted but held to be insufficient ground for disallowance.

Application of law to facts: Given the settled legal position, the Tribunal concluded that the AO's acceptance of the deduction was legally sustainable and not erroneous.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued that delay in filing Form 10DA invalidated the claim. The assessee relied on binding judicial precedents to contend that filing before assessment completion suffices. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, noting the AO's considered decision and the faceless assessment mechanism reducing chances of error.

Conclusion: The delay in filing Form 10DA did not render the AO's order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's revision under section 263 on this ground was unjustified.

Issue 2: Non-consideration of adjustment made under section 143(1) while passing order under section 143(3)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 143(1) pertains to processing of return, while section 143(3) relates to scrutiny assessment. The question was whether the AO was required to consider the adjustment made by CPC under section 143(1) in the limited scrutiny assessment order under section 143(3).

Judicial pronouncements, including recent decisions of Calcutta High Court and ITAT Jaipur Bench, were cited to establish that in limited scrutiny assessments, the AO's scope is confined to the reasons for which the case was selected. Issues beyond the scope of limited scrutiny cannot be examined or reopened under section 263.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the limited scrutiny was confined to refund claims and deductions under Chapter VI-A. The adjustment relating to late deposit of ESI/PF dues was not part of the scrutiny scope. The adjustment under section 143(1) had been challenged separately before the ITAT, which allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition. Therefore, the issue was already adjudicated and outside the scope of section 263 revision.

Key evidence and findings: The adjustment of Rs. 5,61,32,750 was made at the processing stage. The limited scrutiny assessment order did not consider this adjustment because it was beyond the scrutiny scope. The ITAT's order in the appeal against the processing stage addition was favorable to the assessee.

Application of law to facts: Since the issue was outside the limited scrutiny scope and was already adjudicated in the assessee's favor, the AO's order under section 143(3) was not erroneous or prejudicial for failing to consider this adjustment.

Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue contended that non-consideration of this adjustment prejudiced revenue. The assessee argued that limited scrutiny confines AO's jurisdiction and that the issue was already decided by ITAT. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submissions.

Conclusion: The AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial for not considering the adjustment made under section 143(1) in the limited scrutiny assessment. The PCIT's revision on this ground was unsustainable.

Issue 3: Validity of invoking section 263 jurisdiction in a limited scrutiny faceless assessment case

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 263 allows revision only if the order of the AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. held that both conditions must coexist. Further, the AO's order cannot be revised merely because the Commissioner disagrees with the AO's view if that view is sustainable in law.

Limited scrutiny assessments restrict the AO's examination to specified issues. The Tribunal relied on recent decisions of Calcutta High Court and ITAT Jaipur Bench holding that in limited scrutiny, AO cannot examine issues beyond the selection reasons and section 263 cannot be invoked for matters outside this scope.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment was completed under the faceless E-Assessment Scheme, involving multiple units ensuring quality and reducing error probability. The AO had called for details, examined submissions, and passed the order accepting the returned income on the limited scrutiny issues. The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was based on a mere difference of opinion and a casual observation of delay in filing Form 10DA without any substantive finding of error or prejudice.

The Tribunal held that invoking section 263 to re-open issues already examined and decided by the AO under a plausible legal view amounts to impermissible change of opinion. The PCIT failed to demonstrate that the AO's order was unsustainable in law or that the revenue was prejudiced.

Key evidence and findings: The AO's order dated 29.03.2021 was detailed and based on material and submissions. The PCIT's order did not identify any specific error or omission apart from disagreement with AO's view. The ITAT had already adjudicated the adjustment issue in assessee's favor. The faceless assessment framework provided multiple layers of scrutiny.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal applied the twin conditions test from Malabar Industrial and other Supreme Court rulings, concluding that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial. The PCIT's revision was thus invalid.

Treatment of competing arguments: Revenue urged that the AO failed to apply mind properly and ignored relevant provisions. The assessee countered with judicial precedents, the faceless assessment framework, and the limited scrutiny scope. The Tribunal sided with the assessee, underscoring the need for clear error and prejudice before invoking section 263.

Conclusion: The PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was unjustified. The AO's order was sustainable, and the revision order was quashed.

Significant Holdings

"The prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under section 263 is that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied with twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If one of them is absent, recourse cannot be had to section 263(1)."

"Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. For example, when the AO adopts one of two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law."

"The requirement of filing Form 10DA (or audit reports under similar provisions) with the return of income is directory and not mandatory. Filing such form before completion of assessment proceedings suffices for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA."

"In limited scrutiny assessments, the AO's jurisdiction is confined to the issues for which the case was selected. Issues beyond this scope cannot be examined or reopened under section 263."

"The faceless assessment scheme involving multiple units (Assessment, Verification, Technical, Review) ensures quality and reduces the likelihood of erroneous orders."

"A revision under section 263 cannot be based on mere difference of opinion or on the ground that the Commissioner is dissatisfied with the AO's conclusion if that conclusion is legally sustainable."

Final determinations:

• The AO's order allowing deduction under section 80JJAA despite delayed filing of Form 10DA was not erroneous or prejudicial.
• The AO's order not considering adjustment made under section 143(1) in limited scrutiny was not erroneous or prejudicial, especially as the issue was adjudicated in assessee's favor by ITAT.
• The PCIT's invocation of section 263 jurisdiction was unjustified and amounted to impermissible change of opinion.
• The appeal filed by the assessee against the revision order under section 263 was allowed, and the revision order was quashed.

---