Revisional power of Commissioner under the Act limited to orders prejudicial to revenue; taxation confined to non-exempt income.

Clarifies that revisional power cannot be exercised merely because an assessment is erroneous; Commissioners jurisdiction arises only where the error is prejudicial to the revenue, and absent that condition Section 263 cannot be invoked, resulting in relief for the assessee. Further, where only a portion of a trusts income arises from investments or deposits contravening trust restrictions, only that portion forfeits exemption and is taxable at the maximum marginal rate; the remainder retains exemption and cannot be assessed as income, limiting revenues claim to the non-exempt portion.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Power of Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Taxation of income in violation of Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Applicability of proviso to Section 164(2) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Power of Commissioner under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act

The primary contention was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax could invoke Section 263 to revise an assessment order that was allegedly erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal had held that the Commissioner could not set aside the order of the Assessing Officer if two views were possible and the Assessing Officer had taken one of those views. The High Court upheld this view, agreeing with the Division Bench's interpretation that for Section 263 to be invoked, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The court cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain, emphasizing that the Commissioner cannot revise orders solely on the ground of error unless it is also prejudicial to the revenue. Therefore, the first substantial question of law was resolved against the revenue and in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2: Taxation of income in violation of Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act

The second issue was whether the entire income of the Trust should be taxed if part of it violated Section 11(5). The Tribunal had held that only the income from the specific investment or deposit that violated Section 11(5) should be taxed, not the entire income of the Trust. The High Court supported this interpretation, referring to the Bombay High Court's decision in Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) v. Sheth Mafatlal Gagalbhai Foundation Trust and the Delhi High Court's decision in Director of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Agrim Charan Foundation. Both judgments clarified that only the non-exempt portion of the income should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, not the entire income. The High Court agreed with this view, stating that the violation of Section 13(1)(d) does not lead to the denial of exemption under Section 11 for the entire income.

Issue 3: Applicability of proviso to Section 164(2) of the Income Tax Act

The third issue was whether the proviso to Section 164(2) applied when there was no "income derived from the property." The High Court interpreted Section 164(2) to mean that only the income from the property violating Section 11(5) should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate. The court reiterated that the legislature intended for only the non-exempt income portion to be taxed, not the entire income. This interpretation was consistent with the views of the Bombay and Delhi High Courts. Thus, the High Court held that the entire income of the Trust could not be taxed due to the violation of Section 11(5).

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Commissioner could not invoke Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous unless it was also prejudicial to the revenue. Additionally, only the income violating Section 11(5) should be taxed at the maximum marginal rate, not the entire income of the Trust. The Tribunal's decision to restore the order of the Assessing Officer was upheld, and all substantial questions of law were resolved in favor of the assessee.

---