Exercise of jurisdiction under s.263 to revise final assessment after s.144C(13) DRP directions held invalid; order quashed
ITAT MUMBAI - AT held that exercise of jurisdiction under s.263 to revise a final assessment order passed by the AO pursuant to directions of the DRP under s.144C(13) is invalid. The tribunal declared the impugned s.263 order void and quashed it, allowing the assessee's appeal and restoring the assessment completed in accordance with DRP directions.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax may validly invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act to revise a final assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to directions issued by the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) under section 144C(13).
2. Whether an assessment order completed in conformity with DRP directions under section 144C(13) can be treated as "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue" for the purposes of section 263, having regard to the statutory scheme, legislative history and judicial precedents.
3. Ancillary question: the legal effect of omission of any deeming provision in Explanation 1(a) to section 263 to include orders passed under direction of DRP and the comparative institutional status of a single Commissioner vis-à-vis the three-member DRP collegium for purposes of revisional power.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Competence to invoke section 263 against orders passed under section 144C(13)
Legal framework: Section 263 empowers the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to call for and examine records and revise orders of the Assessing Officer if they are "erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue," subject to Explanation 1 which specifies certain orders that are amenable to revision. Section 144C establishes a DRP mechanism for resolution of variations proposed in draft assessment orders, grants DRP powers to issue binding directions (section 144C(5), (8), (10)) and mandates that the AO complete assessment in conformity with DRP directions without providing further opportunity to the assessee (section 144C(13)).
Precedent treatment: Co-ordinate bench decisions relied upon by the Tribunal (including prior decisions following the jurisdictional High Court exposition) have held that final assessment orders passed pursuant to DRP directions under section 144C(13) are not subject to revision under section 263. Decisions cited by the Department were distinguished as inapplicable to the statutory scheme under section 144C.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal construed section 144C as a self-contained code providing a complete mechanism for assessment and remedy in respect of eligible assessee disputes arising from transfer pricing adjustments. The binding nature of DRP directions (section 144C(10)) and the mandatory conformity requirement (section 144C(13)) mean the AO's final order is the product of a collegial, higher-ranked authority. Explanation 1(a) to section 263 enumerates certain superior-directed AO orders (e.g., under section 144A) that can be revised, but it does not include orders under section 144C(13). The omission was treated as deliberate legislative choice; consequential amendments were made elsewhere when section 144C was inserted, but no amendment was made to section 263 to bring DRP-directed orders within revisional scope. The Tribunal applied the maxim that one cannot do indirectly what is prohibited directly (quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum), reasoning that allowing section 263 to affect DRP-conformant orders would nullify the statutory protection afforded by section 144C(13).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 263 cannot be validly invoked to revise a final assessment order passed by the AO in conformity with DRP directions under section 144C(13); the omission in Explanation 1(a) and the mandatory, binding nature of DRP directions are determinative. Obiter - Comments on comparative institutional superiority of a three-member DRP collegium vis-à-vis a single Commissioner as reinforcing policy rationale.
Conclusion: The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions under section 144C(13), and quashed the revisional order while restoring the final assessment.
Issue 2 - Whether a section 144C(13) assessment can be "erroneous and prejudicial" for purposes of section 263
Legal framework: Section 263 permits revision where an AO's order is "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue." Section 144C(13) requires AO to pass final order in conformity with DRP directions, without further opportunity of hearing.
Precedent treatment: Co-ordinate benches have held that where an AO's final order faithfully implements DRP directions, it is not open to a single Commissioner to re-examine the same matters under section 263. Jurisdictional High Court decisions characterising DRP proceedings as a "second look" correction mechanism were followed to emphasize that DRP is part of the assessment process and not an appeal amenable to unilateral revision by the Commissioner.
Interpretation and reasoning: Because the final order is the product of DRP directions - including the DRP's power to enhance variations and to make or direct enquiries - the AO in passing a conforming order lacks independent discretion that could render the order substantively erroneous in the sense contemplated by section 263. Allowing section 263 to impinge upon such orders would subvert the statutory design and procedural protections embedded in section 144C; it would also permit the Commissioner to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing contrary to the express bar in section 144C(13).
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An AO's order passed strictly in conformity with DRP directions cannot be treated as "erroneous and prejudicial" for the purposes of section 263 so as to justify revision by the Commissioner. Obiter - Discussion that if the AO had deviated from DRP directions, the AO's order would be invalid and open to correction by appropriate remedy.
Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that final assessment orders passed under section 144C(13) in conformity with DRP directions are not susceptible to revision under section 263 on the ground of being "erroneous and prejudicial," and any attempt to use section 263 to elicit further enquiry or to grant hearing to the assessee would conflict with statutory mandate.
Issue 3 - Legislative intent, Explanation 1(a) omission and institutional hierarchy
Legal framework and interpretation: Explanation 1(a) to section 263 lists certain AO orders made under superior direction that may be revised; it does not include DRP-directed orders. The Tribunal interpreted this omission as intentional, particularly since insertion of section 144C was accompanied by consequential amendments to other provisions but not to section 263. The DRP is a three-member collegium of Commissioners; a single Commissioner is not institutionally superior to that collegium.
Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on prior decisions and jurisdictional High Court exposition that treated DRP proceedings as a collegial corrective mechanism and held that a later single Commissioner cannot revisit determinations made by a DRP collegium under section 263.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The absence of a deeming provision in Explanation 1(a) to cover DRP-based orders, together with the binding and final character of DRP directions, supports the conclusion that section 263 was not intended to apply. Obiter - Observations on institutional parity and comparative authority were used to buttress statutory interpretation rather than as independent ground.
Conclusion: Legislative scheme and institutional considerations corroborate that section 263 does not extend to revision of DRP-conformant final assessment orders; thereby the revisional exercise attempted by the Principal Commissioner was beyond competence.
Overall Disposition
On the questions actually considered, the Tribunal held that the revisional order under section 263 was invalid insofar as it sought to revise an assessment finalized in conformity with DRP directions under section 144C(13); the revisional order was quashed and the final assessment order restored. Other substantive grounds in the appeal were left open for adjudication if required.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
