Nalanda Engicon v Pr. CIT: ITAT Patna Quashes Section 263 Revision of Section 153A Assessment

This consolidated order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna, decided eight appeals filed by Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd., a civil contractor based in Patna, against separate revisionary orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2014-15 through 2021-22. The case matters for researchers tracking the outer limits of the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction where the underlying assessments were framed under section 153A — particularly where the AO had already conducted inquiry through notices under the Act before the PCIT sought to characterise the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue.

This page is a research summary of one specific Indian tax judgment, NOT legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment and consult a professional for case-specific guidance.

---

The case at a glance

• Parties: Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna, Patna vs Pr. CIT (Central), Patna
• Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Patna
• Date: 12 September 2024
• Court level: Tribunal (ITAT)
• Sections engaged: 263, 153A, 127
• Outcome: Taxpayer succeeded

---

Facts of the case

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. is a civil contractor whose assessments for AY 2014-15 to AY 2021-22 were framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Patna under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act. The PCIT (Central), Patna thereafter passed separate revisionary orders dated 31 March 2024 under section 263, setting aside the AO's orders and directing fresh assessment on multiple grounds including alleged lack of inquiry into unexplained expenditures and cash transactions appearing in search-related records.

Among the factual disputes surfaced in the grounds of appeal, the assessee pointed out that the AO had issued notices under section 142(1) specifically seeking details of cash payments (register KK-03, shop nos. 14 and 15), cash receipts and cash payments (NPT-22 and NPT-23), and trade payables of Rs. 48,82,334 — the very items the PCIT characterised as uninvestigated. The assessee also contended that for the relevant year it had disclosed a net profit of 6.59% of total turnover, exceeding the 6% benchmark addressed by the Patna High Court in the matter of Prasad Constructions and Company Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax. Additionally, an original ground challenged the section 153A proceedings themselves on the basis that additions relating to unexplained expenditure of Rs. 8,26,46,443 could not satisfy the threshold condition required to invoke the extended six-year block period under section 153A.

An additional ground — admitted by the Tribunal over the Revenue's objection on the basis that legal issues may be raised at any stage of proceedings — raised a further jurisdictional challenge: since the assessment under section 153A had been framed after obtaining the mandatory approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under section 153D, the PCIT could not revise that assessment under section 263 without also revising the directions given under section 153D. A related original ground challenged the section 127 transfer of jurisdiction from the National e-Assessment Centre to the AO as having occurred beyond the limitation period, thereby rendering the underlying section 153A order void ab initio — and the section 263 revision that rested upon it correspondingly invalid.

---

Issues raised

• Whether the PCIT was justified in invoking section 263 when the AO had already made inquiries and reached a plausible view on the items subsequently characterised as uninvestigated.
• Whether a section 153A assessment framed with the approval of the ACIT under section 153D can be revised under section 263 without the PCIT simultaneously revising the section 153D directions.
• Whether the underlying section 153A assessment order was itself void as having been passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 153A, or in consequence of a defective section 127 transfer beyond the permissible period.
• Whether the assessee's reported net profit ratio of 6.59% of total turnover precluded the PCIT from treating the AO's order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in respect of unexplained expenditure items.

---

What the court held

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. The eight appeals — ITA Nos. 322 to 329/Pat/2024 covering AY 2014-15 to AY 2021-22 — were disposed of by a single consolidated order, with ITA No. 322/Pat/2024 for AY 2014-15 treated as the lead case, the decision applying mutatis mutandis to all remaining appeals.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, holding that legal issues going to the root of the matter can be raised at any stage of proceedings. The additional grounds directly attacked the jurisdictional validity of the PCIT's revisionary action: the assessee's position, as recorded in those grounds and admitted for adjudication, was that the order dated 31 March 2024 passed by the PCIT (Central), Patna invoking section 263 was bad in law, illegal, ab initio void, and liable to be cancelled. The jurisdictional argument grounded in section 153D — that an assessment framed under section 153A after obtaining the ACIT's approval under section 153D cannot be revised under section 263 without also revising those section 153D directions — was advanced as a principle laid down by the jurisdictional Tribunal at Patna.

The Tribunal's outcome, recorded as a taxpayer success, reflects agreement with the assessee's position that the AO had already made inquiries and taken a possible view, thereby depriving the PCIT of the prerequisite finding of an erroneous and prejudicial order necessary to sustain a section 263 revision. The section 153D jurisdictional ground, admitted as an additional ground going to the root of the matter, formed a further and independent basis on which the revisionary order was assailed.

---

Strategy observations

1. An additional ground was raised before the Tribunal challenging the section 263 revision on the basis that the section 153D approval structure insulates a section 153A assessment from standalone revision under section 263 — a ground the Tribunal admitted despite Revenue's opposition, on the settled principle that legal issues may be raised at any stage.

2. The assessee relied on the factual record of the AO's own section 142(1) notices to demonstrate that the specific line items later characterised by the PCIT as uninvestigated — cash payment registers, cash receipt and payment records, and trade payables — had in fact been the subject of inquiry during assessment, directly undermining the "lack of inquiry" rationale for invoking section 263.

3. The profit-ratio argument — that the assessee's 6.59% net profit on turnover exceeded the 6% benchmark addressed by the Patna High Court in Prasad Constructions and Company Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax — was advanced as a basis for denying that any unexplained expenditure addition could supply the "prejudicial to Revenue" element required for a valid section 263 revision.

4. The assessee also raised the competence of the underlying section 153A assessment itself, both on limitation grounds under section 153A and on the validity of the section 127 transfer, framing these as anterior defects that vitiated the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction at its foundation.

5. All eight assessment years were covered by a consolidated hearing, with AY 2014-15 designated as the lead case, and the Tribunal's findings applied uniformly across the full block period — a procedurally efficient approach where the facts and grounds were common across years.

---

Why this case matters

This order contributes to a growing body of ITAT decisions examining the interaction between section 263 and assessments framed under the search-and-seizure assessment regime in section 153A. The jurisdictional argument accepted here — that the PCIT's power under section 263 is constrained where the AO had conducted inquiry and reached a defensible view, and that the section 153D approval architecture further limits the PCIT's revisionary reach — has direct relevance for taxpayers whose section 153A assessments become the target of subsequent section 263 proceedings. The Patna Tribunal's admission of the additional ground on section 153D grounds, over Revenue's objection, affirms the procedural principle that jurisdictional defects in the revisionary order itself may be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

The case also illustrates the significance of documenting the AO's inquiry process during assessment: the assessee's ability to point to specific numbered items in section 142(1) notices, corresponding to the precise transactions later characterised by the PCIT as uninvestigated, was central to the argument that the preconditions for section 263 had not been met. For researchers, the case is additionally notable for spanning eight consecutive assessment years in a single consolidated order, making it a reference point on how block-period section 153A assessments interact with the PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction across an extended timeline.

---

Source

This case is drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals. Original document: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86710649/