Section 263 revision fails when the Assessing Officer adopts one permissible view supported by precedent and facts.

Section 263 revision is unavailable where the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two legally permissible views on the same facts and the revisional authority merely prefers another view. On the facts discussed, the assessee was treated as an agent of the State Government for development work, and that position had been accepted in earlier years and supported by precedent. The article notes that mere disagreement over the taxability of the income, including reliance on Article 289, did not by itself make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The revisional order was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner could invoke section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to revise an assessment order where the Assessing Officer had accepted the assessee's status as an agent of the State Government and adopted one of two possible views.

Analysis: The assessee was constituted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the material on record showed that it had been appointed by the State Government to act as an agent for development work. The assessment history also showed acceptance of the assessee's stand in earlier years, and the Tribunal's own earlier view supported the assessee. The Principal Commissioner proceeded on the premise that the assessee's income was taxable because Article 289 of the Constitution of India was not attracted, but the Tribunal found that this was only a different view on the same set of facts. In revision under section 263, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and an order cannot be revised merely because the revisional authority prefers another permissible view. The binding effect of higher judicial decisions and the rule of judicial discipline also weighed against disregarding the view already accepted by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was not sustainable. The order of the Principal Commissioner was set aside and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order could not be revised on the facts presented because the Assessing Officer had adopted a legally permissible view supported by precedent, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible lawful views and the revisional authority merely substitutes a different view without demonstrating that the assessment order is unsustainable in law.

---