Section 263 revision upheld where land classification and section 54B eligibility were not properly examined.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 was sustained where the Tribunal found that the assessment had not properly examined the nature of the land, the assessee's entitlement to deduction under section 54B, and other relevant facts. Applying the settled test that revision is permissible only when an order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the Tribunal upheld remand for de novo adjudication and directed the fresh authority to decide independently, uninfluenced by its observations. The High Court found those safeguards adequate and declined interference, noting that no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the assumption of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and remanding the matter for de novo adjudication, and whether such observations warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: The assessment order had accepted the assessee's claim after scrutiny, but the Tribunal found that the nature of the land, the entitlement to deduction under section 54B, and the relevant factual aspects were not properly examined. Applying the settled test that revision is permissible where the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, the Tribunal recorded reasons for sustaining the revisional action. It also expressly directed that the fresh decision be taken independently and without being influenced by its observations. The Court held that these safeguards were sufficient and that no interference was called for, particularly when no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's view on section 263 failed, and the appeal was not entertained.

---