Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 fails where the Assessing Officer made enquiries and took a plausible view on share capital and premium.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 can be invoked only where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Where an earlier revisional order had already directed enquiry into share capital and share premium, and the Assessing Officer later examined bank statements, audited accounts, PAN/CIN details, returns and other supporting materials before accepting the claim, a second revision could not rest on a mere different view or alleged inadequate enquiry. In the absence of any specific factual omission or material showing the assessment view was unsustainable, the second revisional order lacked jurisdiction and was quashed. The assessee's onus on identity, creditworthiness and genuineness was treated as discharged on the record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second revisional order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid when the Assessing Officer had carried out the enquiries directed in the earlier revisional order and had taken a plausible view on the share capital and share premium received by the assessee.

Analysis: The jurisdiction under section 263 can be assumed only if the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The earlier revisional order had already set aside the original assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to examine the books, bank accounts, source of share application money, identity of investors, and genuineness of the transactions. In the second round, the Assessing Officer examined the documents, bank statements, audited accounts, PAN/CIN particulars, returns, and other materials of the share subscribers, and accepted the claim after verification. The record did not show that the Principal Commissioner identified any specific factual omission, any demonstrable lack of enquiry, or any material to show that the view taken by the Assessing Officer was unsustainable. The conclusion that the second assessment was erroneous merely because a different view was possible was not sufficient to invoke revisional jurisdiction. The provisions of section 68 applicable to assessment year 2012-13 did not impose the later proviso regarding share capital and premium, and the assessee had discharged the initial onus regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.

Conclusion: The second revisional order under section 263 was without jurisdiction and was quashed. The issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional power under section 263 cannot be exercised on a mere suspicion of inadequate enquiry where the Assessing Officer has in fact conducted enquiries and adopted a plausible view; a second revision on the same subject matter is impermissible unless the Commissioner identifies a specific error rendering the assessment both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

---