Entitlement to deduction under section 80P(2)(d) limited to member credit profit; revision u/s 263 rejected.

Revision u/s 263 challenged an assessing officer's restriction of deduction under section 80P(2)(d) to profits from providing credit to members; the AO had verified balance sheet, P&L and investments and disallowed amounts relating to non-core investment income after due enquiry. The tribunal found the AO took a plausible, substantiated view and held that mere disagreement by the commissioner does not satisfy the twin conditions for invoking revision jurisdiction, therefore the exercise of power u/s 263 was unwarranted and the decision was affirmed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax rightly invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to set aside the assessment order for AY 2020-21 by treating the Assessing Officer's allowance of deduction under section 80P as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.

Analysis: The assessee, a cooperative credit society, claimed deductions under section 80P and filed return declaring nil; the Assessing Officer after calling for and examining documentary details disallowed part of the claim (Rs.14,95,729) treating that amount as interest/dividend from investments and allowed the balance as business-related. The Pr. CIT held that the AO did not make adequate enquiry and, relying on Totgars, directed limited reassessment under section 263. The Tribunal examined the assessment order and found that the AO had verified accounts, balance sheet and submissions, applied mind and taken a plausible view in disallowing the specific amount. The Tribunal also considered competing authorities for and against the assessee's entitlement for section 80P deduction and noted that several decisions support the assessee's position. Applying the established legal test for invocation of section 263, the Tribunal evaluated whether both conditions - (i) the assessment order is erroneous and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue - were satisfied, and whether the Pr. CIT's action amounted to impermissible change of opinion where the AO had taken a reasoned view.

Conclusion: The Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking section 263 because the Assessing Officer had conducted enquiries and taken a plausible, reasoned view; the twin conditions for exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 were not fulfilled. The order under section 263 is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked merely to substitute the Pr. CIT's opinion for a plausible, reasoned view of the Assessing Officer; both conditions of error and prejudice to Revenue must be satisfied before exercising revisionary jurisdiction.

---