Section 263 revision can reach DRP-based assessments, but proceedings must stay confined to the notice-specific disallowance issues.

A final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions remains open to revision under section 263 if the Principal Commissioner, on the record before him, finds it erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. A later Supreme Court ruling on the disallowability of delayed employees' contribution to PF and ESI could support revision on that basis, and the jurisdictional objection was rejected. The revisional direction, however, could not travel beyond the specific matters identified in the notice: delayed PF/ESI contributions and the stated penalty or interest items. The Assessing Officer was therefore confined to those issues, and no wider enquiry was permitted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Principal Commissioner could invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions on the ground that belated employees' contribution to PF and ESI, and certain penalty or interest items, had not been properly disallowed. (ii) Whether the scope of the revisionary direction could extend beyond the specific issues covered by the revision notice.

Issue (i): Whether the Principal Commissioner could invoke revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 in respect of the final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions on the ground that belated employees' contribution to PF and ESI, and certain penalty or interest items, had not been properly disallowed.

Analysis: The revisionary power under section 263 is determined with reference to the record examined by the Principal Commissioner at the time of revision. A later Supreme Court ruling holding that delayed employees' contribution is not allowable can render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue when the record is examined. The final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions is not exempt from revision under section 263 merely because it arose from the DRP process.

Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was valid and the objection to jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the scope of the revisionary direction could extend beyond the specific issues covered by the revision notice.

Analysis: The revisional direction was confined to the identified items, namely delayed employees' contribution and the penalty or interest components referred to in the notice. A roving enquiry beyond those matters was not permissible.

Conclusion: The Assessing Officer was directed to restrict the proceedings to the issues covered by the revision order.

Final Conclusion: The revisionary order was sustained, subject to limitation of the remand proceedings to the specific disallowance issues identified in the revision notice.

Ratio Decidendi: For section 263, the relevant record is the record existing when the Principal Commissioner examines it, and a final assessment order passed pursuant to DRP directions remains amenable to revision if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue on that basis.

---