Section 263 revision fails where the Assessing Officer adopted a plausible view and no exempt income triggered section 14A disallowance.

Revision under section 263 was held invalid because the Assessing Officer had examined the depreciation claim on buses and adopted a plausible view that higher depreciation applied where the vehicles were used in a hire business; the revisional authority could not merely substitute a different opinion without showing the order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. On section 14A, no disallowance was warranted where no exempt income had been earned and the assessment order was not shown to be legally unsustainable; the revisional action was also time-barred for earlier years under section 263(2). The revisional orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the ground that higher depreciation at 30% on buses had been wrongly allowed instead of the normal rate. (ii) Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the ground that disallowance under section 14A had not been made in respect of investments in shares.

Issue (i): Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the ground that higher depreciation at 30% on buses had been wrongly allowed instead of the normal rate.

Analysis: The assessment records showed that the Assessing Officer had examined the depreciation claim, considered the assessee's reply and the cited authorities, and thereafter dropped the reopening proceedings. The claim for higher depreciation had been accepted on a plausible view that the buses were used in the business of running them on hire. The revisional authority did not point to any unsustainable view of law, but merely substituted its own opinion for that of the Assessing Officer. Such an exercise does not satisfy the conditions of section 263, which requires the order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Conclusion: The revision on this issue was invalid and the assessee succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid on the ground that disallowance under section 14A had not been made in respect of investments in shares.

Analysis: The record did not show that the assessment orders were unsustainable in law on the section 14A issue. The assessee had not earned exempt income in the relevant years, and the authorities cited supported the position that no disallowance was warranted in such a situation. The revisional power could not be used to direct a section 14A disallowance where the assessment order was not shown to be erroneous in the requisite legal sense. The notices and revisional orders were also hit by limitation under section 263(2) for the earlier assessment years.

Conclusion: The revision on this issue was also invalid and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The revisional orders were set aside in their entirety, and the assessee's appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 can be invoked only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and it cannot be used merely because the revisional authority prefers a different view or seeks to make a fresh assessment on issues already examined by the Assessing Officer.

---