Section 263 revision barred on a debatable CSR-to-80G deduction issue where the assessment adopted a plausible view.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 263 could not be used to disturb an assessment that accepted a claim linked to corporate social responsibility expenditure and deduction under section 80G, because the issue was debatable and coordinate Tribunal benches had taken differing views. The assessment order was therefore a plausible view, and section 263 was not available merely to substitute one possible view for another. On that basis, the revisional order was unsustainable and the assessment was restored to the assessee's relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be invoked to revise the assessment on the ground that a part of the corporate social responsibility expenditure was claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The issue whether donation claimed out of corporate social responsibility expenditure can qualify for deduction under section 80G had already been viewed differently by coordinate benches of the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the assessment order accepting the claim represented a plausible view. A revision under section 263 cannot be sustained where the proposed interference rests on a debatable issue and would amount to substituting one possible view for another.

Conclusion: The assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was invalid, and the revisional order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order was restored and the assessee obtained relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked where the assessment has adopted a plausible view on a debatable issue, as such interference amounts to a mere change of opinion rather than a jurisdictional error causing prejudice to the Revenue.

---