Section 263 revision fails where the Assessing Officer made enquiries and adopted a plausible view on share capital and section 14A

Section 263 revision requires the assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. Where the Assessing Officer issued queries, examined the material and adopted a plausible view on share capital receipts, revision could not be sustained merely because the enquiry was considered inadequate or further verification was desired. The same principle applied to the section 14A read with Rule 8D issue: the Assessing Officer had called for details, considered the assessee's explanation that no exempt income was claimed, and consciously accepted that no further disallowance was warranted. On both issues, the revisional order was held unsustainable and the assessment order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could be invoked on the ground that the assessment order accepting the share capital was passed without the requisite enquiry into identity, creditworthiness and genuineness; and (ii) whether the assessment order was liable to revision for alleged non-consideration of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Issue (i): whether revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could be invoked on the ground that the assessment order accepting the share capital was passed without the requisite enquiry into identity, creditworthiness and genuineness.

Analysis: The revisional power could be exercised only if the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The record showed that the Assessing Officer had issued queries, examined the material filed by the assessee, and taken a view on the share capital receipts. The Tribunal held that the case did not involve a total lack of enquiry. A revision could not be sustained merely because the Principal Commissioner considered the enquiry to be inadequate or desired further verification. The assessment on this issue was thus based on a plausible view.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 on the share capital issue was not justified and was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the assessment order was liable to revision for alleged non-consideration of disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had specifically called for details relating to expenditure for earning exempt income and had considered the assessee's response that no exempt income had been claimed during the year. On that material, the Assessing Officer adopted a view that no further disallowance was warranted. The Tribunal treated this as an examined issue and not a case of omission warranting revision. A different opinion on the extent of disallowance could not by itself satisfy the statutory conditions for section 263.

Conclusion: The revision on the section 14A issue was not sustainable and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the assessment order, held the revisional order unsustainable, and allowed both appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked unless the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; where the Assessing Officer has made enquiries and taken a plausible view, mere inadequacy of enquiry or a different opinion does not justify revision.

---