Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be invoked on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not apply section 115BBE to the surrendered income included in the return.
Analysis: The revision was founded on the view that the surrendered income ought to have been taxed at the higher rate under section 115BBE. The record showed that the surrendered amount was already offered in the return, taxes were paid, and no addition was made under sections 68 or 69. The applicability of the amended provision of section 115BBE to surrendered income in the facts of the case was treated as a debatable question. In such circumstances, the assessment order could not be branded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue merely because another view was possible. The preconditions for section 263 require both error and prejudice, and revisional power cannot be used to replace one permissible view with another.
Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was invalid and the revisionary order was liable to be quashed; the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be exercised on a debatable issue where the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views and the twin requirements of error and prejudice to the Revenue are not both satisfied.