Revision under section 263 and capital gains treatment upheld for settlement tied to relinquishment of a property purchase right.

An assessment based on an incorrect appreciation of facts and an unsustainable legal view was held revisable under section 263 because it was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The receipt from settlement of a claim arising out of an aborted property transaction was treated as referable to the assessee's relinquishment of a capital right to seek specific performance, not as a mere right to sue. The earlier Bombay High Court authorities were distinguished, and the receipt was brought within the capital gains framework. The Assessing Officer's contrary view was rejected, and the revision was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (ii) Whether the amount received by the assessee in settlement of its claim arising from the aborted property transaction was taxable, and if so, whether the view taken by the Assessing Officer was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Analysis: The assessment was made after the Assessing Officer examined the issue under section 143(3) and acted upon directions under section 144A. The order was found to rest on an incorrect assumption of facts and an incorrect application of law. The earlier administrative directions did not convert the assessment into an order of the Commissioner, and therefore did not bar revision under section 263. Revision was held permissible where the assessment caused loss of lawful tax due to an unsustainable view on the law.

Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was held to be valid and justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount received by the assessee in settlement of its claim arising from the aborted property transaction was taxable, and if so, whether the view taken by the Assessing Officer was sustainable.

Analysis: The receipt was held to be referable to the assessee's surrender of its right to obtain specific performance of the agreement to purchase property, and not to a mere bare right to sue. The earlier Bombay High Court authorities were treated as distinguishable on their facts. The right acquired under the agreement was regarded as a capital asset, and its relinquishment in settlement attracted the capital gains framework. The Assessing Officer's reliance on the contrary view was therefore held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The receipt was held to be taxable, and the Assessing Officer's view was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was rightly revised and the assessee's challenge failed in full, leaving the Revenue's position undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A receipt obtained in settlement of a claim for specific performance, where the assessee relinquishes a capital right arising from an agreement to purchase immovable property, is not a mere right to sue and may be brought to tax as a capital receipt under the capital gains provisions; an assessment based on an unsustainable legal view and incorrect appreciation of facts is revisable under section 263.

---