Section 263 revision limited by show-cause notice, with capital-treatment correction upheld but year-of-receipt taxation rejected.

A section 263 communication is treated as a pre-decisional hearing notice, so strict compliance with statutory notice-service requirements was not required. Limitation under section 263(2) was not established as barred because the assessee produced no material to displace the record showing timely passing of the revisional order. Revision was sustainable only to the extent that the assessment wrongly treated 45% of receipts as capital, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Commissioner could not, however, go beyond the show-cause notice and alter the basis of revision by taxing the entire receipts in the year of receipt; that part was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the communication issued under section 263 required compliance with the address and service requirements applicable to statutory notices; (ii) Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under section 263(2); (iii) Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to justify revision; (iv) Whether the Commissioner could, in the revisional order, travel beyond the grounds stated in the show-cause notice and treat the entire receipts as taxable in the year of receipt.

Issue (i): Whether the communication issued under section 263 required compliance with the address and service requirements applicable to statutory notices.

Analysis: The distinction was drawn between notices that confer jurisdiction to commence proceedings and communications that merely afford an opportunity of hearing before final order. A communication under section 263 was treated as belonging to the latter category, because jurisdiction already vested in the Commissioner and the opportunity of hearing was only a pre-decisional safeguard. On that basis, strict compliance with section 282(2) was held unnecessary for such communication.

Conclusion: The objection to the validity of the section 263 communication failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional order was barred by limitation under section 263(2).

Analysis: The governing principle was that an order is made when it is pronounced, published, or otherwise goes beyond the control of the authority. The assessee, however, did not place material to show that the order dated 28 March 2002 had not been made or dispatched within time. In the absence of proof to displace the record, the order was treated as having been passed within the statutory period.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue so as to justify revision.

Analysis: The assessment was erroneous to the extent that 45 per cent of the receipts had been attributed to capital account on the basis of an assessment order that did not actually support such attribution. Since that treatment reduced the taxable income, the order was also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The revisional jurisdiction was therefore sustainable to that limited extent.

Conclusion: Revision was valid against the assessee to the extent of the 45 per cent capital treatment.

Issue (iv): Whether the Commissioner could, in the revisional order, travel beyond the grounds stated in the show-cause notice and treat the entire receipts as taxable in the year of receipt.

Analysis: The show-cause notice proposed treatment of the receipts on a different basis, namely allocation over the lease period. The revisional order, however, proceeded on the footing that the whole of the receipts were taxable in the year of receipt. That was a departure from the foundation of the notice and could not be sustained. The same reasoning also applied to the attempt to segregate the receipts and deny the lease-period treatment on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The finding that the entire receipts were taxable in the current year was set aside and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The revisional jurisdiction was upheld only to the extent of disturbing the unjustified capital-treatment of 45 per cent of the receipts, while the direction taxing the whole receipts in the year of receipt was struck down. The appeal was therefore allowed in part.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order under section 263 cannot sustain a basis of decision that departs from the grounds stated in the show-cause notice, and revision is justified only where the assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

---