Nilkanth Developers v. PCIT (2021) 88 ITR 11 (SN) (Surat)(Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Housing projects-Principle of consistency applied to an order under section 263 of the Act as well-Revision was barred by limitation-Issue was not subject of reassessment proceedings-Assessing Officer adopting permissible view-Revision is held to be invalid. [S. 80IB(10), 263(2)]

Held that rule of consistency be applied even in respect of revision proceedings. The original order was  framed under section 143(3) of the Act on March 26, 2013, it could have been revised under section 263 of the Act up to March 31, 2015 by the Principal Commissioner. The Principal Commissioner having revised the original assessment on March 3, 2020 his order was in violation of the provisions of section 263(2) of the Act. Relied on  CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd (2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC). revision order was also quashed on the ground that   the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the Revenue, the decision of the Assessing Officer could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assumption of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner was “null” in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. (AY.2010-11)