Section 263 revision requires error and revenue prejudice; revisional authority cannot replace a permissible Assessing Officer view.

ITAT Delhi held that revision under section 263 is valid only where the assessment is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer had examined the valuation material, applied mind, and adopted one of the possible views, so the Principal Commissioner could not substitute his own assessment or rely on later-year valuation material to upset the original order. The revisional authority also could not itself assume the role of the Assessing Officer and pass what was, in substance, an assessment order. The section 263 order was therefore quashed and the assessment restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the Principal Commissioner assumed the role of the Assessing Officer and directed an assessment enhancement; (ii) Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the Principal Commissioner assumed the role of the Assessing Officer and directed an assessment enhancement.

Analysis: The revisional authority could not itself pass an assessment order, since the power to make an assessment under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 vests in the Assessing Officer as defined under section 2(7A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The impugned order was treated as an assessment order in substance, which was beyond the revisional jurisdiction. The order also proceeded without reference to relevant material for the year under consideration.

Conclusion: The order under section 263 was invalid and liable to be quashed.

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

Analysis: Revision under section 263 requires both conditions to coexist, namely that the assessment order must be erroneous and also prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer had examined the valuation material, applied mind, rejected the revised claim in part, and adopted one of the possible views. Reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer under section 55A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was discretionary, not mandatory. The revisional action was based mainly on valuation material from a subsequent assessment year, which could not justify interference with the original assessment on the facts recorded.

Conclusion: The assessment order was not shown to be erroneous and prejudicial, so revision was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside and the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was restored, resulting in relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 can be invoked only when the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and a revisional authority cannot substitute its own assessment for that of the Assessing Officer where the latter has taken a permissible view after applying mind.

---