Assessee was a promoter of a company and held 3,34,700 shares in said company. He, along with other promoters, had entered into subscription and purchase agreement (SPA) with a company and sold 100 per cent of their company shares for a consideration of certain amount-Assessee filed its return of income disclosing LTCG on sale of shares including amount kept in escrow account.Assessment was completed under section 143(3). Thereafter, certain statutory and other liabilities arose in company for period prior to sale of shares and amount kept in escrow account was withdrawn. Assessee filed petition under section 264 seeking refund of excess tax paid on excess capital gains shown earlier in its income. Principal Commissioner rejected same on ground that intimation under section 143(1) was not an order amenable to revisional jurisdiction under section 264.  In case of other promoter on similar issue High Court held that capital gains on transfer of shares of company should be computed after reducing proportionate amount withdrawn from escrow account from full value of consideration and allowing refund of additional tax paid with interest. Allowing the petition the Court held that  intimation under section 143(1) is an order amenable to revisional jurisdiction under section 264. The  matter was to be remanded to Principal Commissioner to pass a fresh order on application of assessee. Refered. Diwaker Tripathi v. Pr. CIT [2023] 295 Taxman 532 (Bom.) (HC).(AY. 2011-12)