Section 263 revision invalid if AO's order post-inquiry is plausible; limitation for original issues runs from original assessment, not reassessment; delays condoned for bona fide pandemic/staff reasons.

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This group of four appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of learned Principal Commissioner-1, Nagpur (PCIT) or learned Commissioner (Appeals) in short “ld CIT(A)” for assessment year 2015- 16, 2016-17 and 2017- 18. In ITA No. 142/Nag/2025, the assessee has challenged the validity of order of learned PCIT passed under section 263 dated 06.03.2020 for AY 2015-16. In ITA No. 143/Nag/2025 the assessee has challenged the validity of order of learned PCIT passed under section 263 dated 28.03.2024 for AY 2017-18. In ITA No. 209 /Nag/2025, the assessee has challenged the validity of order of learned PCIT passed under section 263 dated 29.03.2024 for AY 2016-17. And in ITA No. 269/Nag/2025, the assessee has challenged the order of ld CIT(A) /National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi (NFAC) dated 26.09.2024 in confirming the addition made in assessment order passed under section 143 rws 263 dated 28^th September 2021, passed in pursuance of direction of PCIT dated 06.03. 2020 for AY 2015-16. Certain facts and all appeals are common and interconnected. Therefore, with the consent of parties all the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by consolidated order to avoid the conflict in decisions.

2. In ITA No.142/Nag/2025 the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal;

(1) The order passed under section 263 by Principal Commissioner of income Tax,Nagpur-1 (PCIT) is illegal, invalid and bad in law.

(2) The PCIT ought to have considered order passed under section 143(3) by assessing officer in which all the issues were discussed and considered at the time of assessment proceeding and the assessing officer considering the aspect and made addition, therefore, order passed by PCIT is unjustified unwarranted and excessive.

(3) The PCIT ought to have considered order passed in section 143(3) by assessing officer is not erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, order passed under section 263 is unjustified unwarranted and excessive.

(4) The assessee has preferred the appeal against the order passed under section 143(3) and said appeal were also allowed and order under section 250 were also passed, therefore, order passed under section 263 is unjustified unwarranted and excessive.

(5) The PCIT has not considered the entire written submission of the assessee and passed order under section 263 without going into merit of the case, therefore, the order passed is unjustified unwarranted and excessive.

(6) The PCIT has not accepted the contention of assessee and disallowed the business loss and unabsorbed depreciation on the basis of order under section 154 dated 22 December 2025, which is not received by the assessee, therefore, passing order under section 263 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive.

3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee co-operative society providing banking and credit facility to its member. The assessee is also engaged in business of real estate in the name of Nirmal Nagri Housing Project and also into the business of providing healthcare. The assessee filed its return of income for assessment year (AY )2015-16 on 27^th October 2015 declaring Nil income. The assessee claimed exemption of entire income under section 80P. The case was selected for scrutiny. The assessing officer (AO), in para-2 of