Just a moment...
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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revisionary order under section 263 could be sustained when the alleged error related to an issue already examined in the original assessment and not arising from the reassessment order.
Analysis: The reassessment under section 147 read with section 144B was initiated for a different matter, namely the applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) to the newly acquired property. The Commissioner, however, invoked section 263 on the footing that the enhanced stamp-duty value of the sold properties ought to have been considered under section 50C. That issue had already been dealt with in the original scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The revisional jurisdiction could not be used to revisit a matter concluded in the earlier assessment, especially when the period for revising that original order had already expired. The reassessment order itself was not shown to be erroneous on the ground on which it was made.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was not sustainable and was rightly quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked to revise a reassessment order on a ground that was already concluded in the original assessment and is outside the scope of the reassessment, particularly where revision of the original order is time-barred.