Section 263 revision cannot replace a proper assessment view where enquiries were made and one permissible conclusion was accepted.

Section 263 revision is not justified where the Assessing Officer has made enquiries on the unsecured loan and cash deposit issue, examined supporting records, and accepted one permissible view of the evidence. The Commissioner cannot substitute a different opinion or rely on an audit objection and a reappraisal of the same material unless there is a clear, reasoned finding that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Mere desire for further enquiry, or an allegation of inadequate enquiry without demonstrating error in the assessment, does not confer revisionary jurisdiction. The original assessment was therefore not capable of revision on the facts found.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner was justified in exercising revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, and whether the assessment could be revised merely because further enquiry on the cash credit issue was considered desirable.

Analysis: The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had examined the unsecured loan and cash deposit issue, called for details, and accepted the assessee's explanation after considering the affidavit, bank records, and related material. The revision order was founded substantially on an audit objection and on a different appreciation of the same material, including a later GPA and a view that the assessee should have proved the source of source. The Tribunal held that section 263 cannot be invoked to substitute the Commissioner's opinion for that of the Assessing Officer where enquiry was in fact made. It further held that inadequate enquiry, without a clear finding that the assessment order is erroneous, does not by itself confer revisionary jurisdiction. The Tribunal also accepted that the transfer of the property had taken place on the agreement date with possession, supporting the assessee's explanation of the source of funds and weakening the premise of the revision order.

Conclusion: The exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 was not sustainable. The revision order was quashed and the assessee succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The assessment could not be revised on the facts found, because the original assessment had already been examined on the relevant issue and the Commissioner had only reappraised the matter on a different view of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Revision under section 263 requires a clear, reasoned finding that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue; where the Assessing Officer has made enquiries and adopted one permissible view, the Commissioner cannot invoke section 263 merely for inadequate enquiry or to substitute a different opinion.

---