The assessee when filing the return pursuant to the notice under section 153A, enhanced the claim under section 80-IB to Rs. 11,88,622, in addition to that claimed under the revised return filed at the stage of section 143(3) proceedings. The Commissioner, acting under section 263,  by order dated March 25, 2009, sought to revise the entire claim of Rs. 11,88,622, which included Rs. 70,651 as allowed. The Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner. On appeal  the Court held that, the Commissioner making the order under section 263 never raised the contention of a claim, in excess of that originally made being not permissible in a proceeding under section153A . If such a ground had resulted in the order being revised, the issue would have been viewed in a totally different perspective. The ground for invoking section 263 was failure to comply with the conditions under section 80-IB of the Act, namely, that the separate accounts were not maintained, the accounts were not audited and the report of audit had not been filed. These were fundamental aspects in allowing the claim under section 80-IB , which applied to the claim made in the revised return of Rs. 70,651 and that claimed in excess in the return filed under section 153A . These grounds applicable to the claim in the revised return, stood allowed and at the point when revision was attempted, had attained finality. Without revising the earlier order, it would not be possible to disallow the claim further made under the return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A. The limitation in so far as interfering with the claim under section 80-IB for the assessment year 2001-02 commenced from the first order which was dated August 31, 2005. The order under section 263 had been passed long after the limitation expired and hence was barred. For the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 it was clear from the first appellate orders that there was a direction issued to the Assessing Officer to grant the claim. The order of assessment was not available for revision under section 263 because it had merged with the first appellate order.( AY. 2001-02 2003-04 2005 -06 2006 -07)