Section 377 — Revenue Revision | ITA 2025

Section 377 — - REVISION OF ORDERS PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE

Section 377 is the substantive equivalent of 1961 s. 263 -- the SUO-MOTO REVISIONARY POWER of Pr CIT / CIT against AO orders that are 'ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE'. The provision allows departmental review of AO orders without departmental appeal; Pr CIT / CIT can call records / examine / pass enhancement orders. Time-limit: 2 YEARS from end of FY in which AO order passed. Critical anti-revenue-loss provision; assessees who escape AO scrutiny may face s. 377 revision. Appeal to ITAT direct.

Statutory text — Income-tax Act, 2025

Marginal note -- Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue

(1) The Competent Authority may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be, is erro- neous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including—

(a) an order enhancing or modifying the assessment or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment;

(b) an order modifying the order under section 166; or

(c) an order cancelling the order under section 166 and directing a fresh order under the said section.

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1),—

(a) an order passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, shall include—

(i) an order of assessment made on the basis of the directions issued by the Joint Commissioner under section 272;

(ii) an order made by the Joint Commissioner in exercise of the powers or in the performance of the functions of an Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, conferred on, or assigned to, him by the Board or by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Com- missioner or Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner authorised by the Board under section 241; and

(iii) an order under section 166;

(b) “record”shall include all records relating to any proceeding under this Act available at the time of examination by the Competent Authority;

(c) where any order referred to in this section and passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, had been the subject matter of any appeal filed, the powers of the Competent Authority, shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.

(3) An order passed by the Assessing Officer or the Transfer Pricing Officer, shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Competent Authority, the order—

(a) is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; or

(b) is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; or

(c) has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 239; or

(d) has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.

(4) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.

(5) Irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (4), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court, or the Supreme Court.

(6) In computing the period of limitation under sub-section (4), the following period shall be excluded,—

(a) the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under section 244(2); and

(b) the period commencing on the date on which stay on any proceeding under this section has been granted by an order or injunction of any court and ending on the date on which certified copy of the order or injunction vacating the stay is received by the jurisdictional Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.

(7) If after the exclusion of the period provided in sub-section (6), the time limit for completion, as provided in sub-section (4) is less than sixty days, such remaining period shall be extended to sixty days and such period of limitation shall be deemed to have been extended accordingly.

(8) For the purposes of this section,—

(a) “Competent Authority” means the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; and

(b) “Transfer Pricing Officer” shall have the same meaning as in section 166(17). Revision of other orders.

Corresponding provision — 1961 regime

INCOME-TAX ACT, 2025	INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961
INCOME-TAX ACT, 2025 -- s. 377	INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 -- s. 263
Sub-s. (1) -- Pr CIT/CIT call for records + examine + pass order	1961 s. 263(1)
Sub-s. (2) -- 'Erroneous and prejudicial to revenue' standard	1961 s. 263(1) Explanation 1/2
Sub-s. (3) -- 2-year time-limit	1961 s. 263(2)
Sub-s. (4) -- Hearing requirement	1961 s. 263(1) Proviso
Faceless framework integration	1961 s. 263 read with FA 2020/2021

STATUTORY ARCHITECTURE: (I) ELIGIBILITY: any AO order under the Act (assessment / reassessment / penalty / etc.); (II) STANDARD: order must be BOTH: (a) ERRONEOUS (factual / legal error); AND (b) PREJUDICIAL TO REVENUE (revenue interest harmed). BOTH CONDITIONS REQUIRED -- mere error without revenue prejudice insufficient (Malabar Industrial Co SC). EXPLANATIONS (1961 framework): (a) Order based on inadequate inquiry; (b) Order without making proper inquiry; (c) Order based on incorrect application of law; (d) Order in defiance of binding HC / SC decisions. TIME-LIMIT (sub-s. 3): 2 YEARS from END of FY in which AO order passed (FA 2017 reduced from 5 years; further reduced FA 2024 / etc.). HEARING (sub-s. 4): (a) Show-cause to assessee; (b) Opportunity to respond; (c) Personal hearing in significant cases. POWERS: (a) ENHANCE assessment; (b) MODIFY assessment; (c) CANCEL AO order + direct fresh assessment; (d) NO POWER to reduce assessment (s. 377 is revenue-side power).

CASE LAW

(i) Malabar Industrial Co v. CIT (SC, 2000, 243 ITR 83) -- foundational; both 'erroneous' AND 'prejudicial' required. (ii) CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (SC, 2009) -- inadequate-inquiry sufficient grounds. (iii) PCIT v. Aristocraft Industries (Bom HC) -- procedural fairness; show-cause specific. (iv) CIT v. Vodafone (Del HC) -- TP-specific s. 263 challenges. (v) Numerous ITAT / HC decisions on what constitutes 'erroneous' / 'prejudicial'.

PRACTITIONER NOTES

(i) PROCEDURAL DEFENCE -- show-cause specific; documentary support; case-law citations. (ii) BOTH CONDITIONS DEFENCE -- argue 'erroneous' OR 'prejudicial' missing; one defence often successful. (iii) INADEQUATE-INQUIRY DEFENCE -- demonstrate AO did adequate inquiry. (iv) APPELLATE -- direct ITAT (skip CIT(A)) within 60 days. (v) STAY APPLICATION -- if revision creates demand, stay-application available. (vi) POST-FA 2017 REDUCED WINDOW -- 2 years tighter; AO orders within window need careful review.

CROSS-REFERENCES

Section 270 -- Assessment.
Section 286 -- Time-limits.
Section 287 -- Rectification.
Section 378 -- Revision of other orders (assessee-friendly).
Section 362 -- ITAT appeals.

← All sections (537)Act 2025 hub