Revisional power u/s263 upheld; limitation u/s263(2) independent, reassessment set aside for PF/ESI disallowance

ITAT Kolkata dismissed the assessee's appeal and upheld the PCIT's revisional jurisdiction under s.263 over the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023, holding that limitation under s.263(2) ran up to 31.03.2025 and applied independently to both assessment and reassessment orders. The Tribunal found that adequate opportunity of hearing was granted, including through electronic communications as recognized under s.2(23C), and no breach of natural justice occurred. It held the reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue as the AO failed to disallow delayed employees' PF/ESI contributions in line with SC precedent, and the ground regarding customs fine/penalty was not pressed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(1) Whether the revisional order under section 263, passed with reference to the reassessment order under section 147 read with section 143(3) dated 30.03.2023, was barred by limitation by reckoning the period from the date of the original assessment order under section 143(3) dated 21.04.2021.

(2) Whether the revisional order under section 263 was vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice on the grounds that the assessee's written replies were not duly considered and a personal hearing sought was not afforded.

(3) Whether, in light of section 263(1) and Explanation 2 thereto (particularly clauses (a) and (d)), the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 was "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" for failure to disallow (i) delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va), and (ii) expenditure on "fine penalty on custom duty" under section 37(1) read with Explanation 1.

(4) Whether the Principal Commissioner was required to specifically deal with and overrule the authorities relied on by the assessee (including decisions of the Rajasthan High Court and ITAT Raipur Bench) in order to validly exercise jurisdiction under section 263, particularly in the context of the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. and the nature of declaratory law.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (1): Limitation for exercise of revisional power under section 263

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Principal Commissioner had revised the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 passed under section 147 read with section 143(3), and not the original assessment order dated 21.04.2021. Under section 263(2), the limitation is to be reckoned with reference to the particular order sought to be revised. An original assessment order and a subsequent reassessment order are distinct and independent "orders" for the purposes of the Act and are separately amenable to appellate and revisional jurisdiction. The limitation for revising the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 expired on 31.03.2025, and the revisional order dated 25.03.2025 thus fell within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The revisional order was within limitation; the plea that limitation must be computed from the date of the original assessment order was rejected.

Issue (2): Compliance with principles of natural justice in section 263 proceedings

Legal framework discussed: The Tribunal referred to section 263(1), the concept of "opportunity of being heard," section 2(23C) (defining "hearing" to include communication through electronic mode), and the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amitabh Bachchan (governing the nature of notice and hearing under section 263).

Interpretation and reasoning: It was recorded that the Principal Commissioner had issued notice dated 20.12.2024 and a further notice dated 15.01.2025. The assessee filed written submissions on 24.01.2025 and 28.01.2025, which were specifically referred to in the revisional order. Relying on Amitabh Bachchan, the Tribunal held that section 263 does not mandate a specific show-cause notice of a particular form; the statutory requirement is only that a reasonable opportunity of being heard be afforded. The provision does not necessarily require an oral/personal hearing; communication and consideration of submissions (including electronically) satisfy the requirement. There was no finding or material to show that the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to contest the facts or contentions relied upon by the Principal Commissioner.

Conclusion: Adequate opportunity of being heard, within the meaning of section 263 and as clarified by section 2(23C) and the Supreme Court in Amitabh Bachchan, had been provided. The revisional order was not vitiated on account of breach of natural justice.

Issue (3): Validity of revision under section 263 in respect of delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI and "fine penalty on custom duty"

Legal framework discussed: Section 36(1)(va); section 37(1) read with Explanation 1; section 147 including Explanation 2 and the third proviso; section 263(1) and Explanation 2, particularly clauses (a) and (d); the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd.; and the principle that Supreme Court decisions are declaratory and clarify existing law. The Tribunal also referred to Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on the nature and scope of proceedings under section 147.

Interpretation and reasoning - employees' contribution to PF/ESI: The Tribunal observed that the reassessment proceedings under section 147 reopened the entire assessment (subject to the bar in respect of issues already the subject of appeal/reference/revision). Under Explanation 2(c) to section 147, even underassessment of income in a completed assessment constitutes escapement of income. In the reassessment, therefore, the Assessing Officer was obliged to apply the law as it stood, including the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. regarding the non-allowability of delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant welfare legislation. It was emphasised that the Supreme Court does not lay down new law but clarifies existing law; thus, Checkmate Services operated from the date of insertion of section 36(1)(va) and was fully applicable on the date of reassessment (30.03.2023). The Assessing Officer, despite the availability of the Supreme Court decision, failed to disallow the delayed employees' contributions. This failure amounted to non-enquiry/non-verification on a material point and resulted in an order contrary to binding Supreme Court law.

Interpretation and reasoning - "fine penalty on custom duty": The Tribunal noted that an amount of Rs. 45,236/- was debited in the Profit & Loss account under the head "Fine Penalty on Custom Duty" and was not disallowed in computation. In terms of Explanation 1 to section 37(1), any expenditure incurred for any purpose which is an offence or prohibited by law is not deemed to be incurred for the purposes of business or profession and no deduction can be allowed. The Assessing Officer had not examined or disallowed this claim in the reassessment order.

Application of section 263(1) and Explanation 2: The Tribunal accepted the Principal Commissioner's application of Explanation 2 to section 263(1):

(a) Under clause (a), an order is deemed "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue" where it is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. The Assessing Officer's omission to examine and disallow delayed employees' PF/ESI contributions and the "fine penalty on custom duty" fell within this deeming provision.

(b) Under clause (d), an order contrary to a decision of the jurisdictional High Court or the Supreme Court, which is prejudicial to the revenue, is deemed erroneous and prejudicial. The Assessing Officer's failure to apply the law as laid down in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. squarely attracted this clause.

The Tribunal also reiterated, with reference to Sun Engineering Works, that proceedings under section 147 are primarily for the benefit of the revenue; once validly reopened, the Assessing Officer is required to bring to tax all income that has escaped assessment (subject to statutory limitations), and therefore had a positive duty to disallow such inadmissible claims.

Conclusion: The reassessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue in respect of the failure to disallow delayed employees' contributions to PF/ESI under section 36(1)(va) and the "fine penalty on custom duty" under section 37(1) read with Explanation 1. The conditions for invoking section 263, including the deeming provisions under Explanation 2(a) and 2(d), stood satisfied. The Principal Commissioner validly set aside the reassessment order to this limited extent directing fresh enquiry and recomputation.

Issue (4): Effect of authorities relied upon by the assessee and requirement to specifically overrule them

Interpretation and reasoning: The assessee invoked decisions of a High Court (Rajasthan) and of the ITAT Raipur Bench, as well as earlier High Court decisions (including Vijay Shree Ltd.) favouring the assessee's position on employees' contributions. The Principal Commissioner, however, based his decision on the later and binding decision of the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd., and on the statutory deeming provisions in Explanation 2 to section 263(1). The Tribunal noted that it is a settled principle that a Supreme Court decision does not create new law but declares what the law always was; hence, once Checkmate Services clarified the correct interpretation of section 36(1)(va), that interpretation governed all pending proceedings from the date of the provision's insertion. Consequently, any contrary views of non-jurisdictional High Courts or Tribunals could not override the binding Supreme Court declaration. The Tribunal also recorded that the Principal Commissioner had examined the applicable provisions and the Supreme Court decision while concluding that the reassessment order was erroneous and prejudicial; a separate formal "overruling" of every authority cited by the assessee was not a condition precedent to validly exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's reliance on the binding Supreme Court decision and on section 263 Explanation 2. The fact that the order did not specifically discuss or "overrule" each decision cited by the assessee did not invalidate the revisional order. The assessee's ground based on such omission was rejected.

Overall disposition

The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's order under section 263 setting aside the reassessment order dated 30.03.2023 to the limited extent of examination and disallowance of (i) delayed employees' contribution to PF/ESI, and (ii) expenditure on "fine penalty on custom duty", and dismissed the assessee's appeal in entirety.

---