Section 263 revision turns on adequacy of enquiry; factual findings barred any substantial question of law.

A challenge to revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act failed because the real dispute was whether the Assessing Officer had conducted proper enquiry before completing scrutiny assessment under section 143(3). The Principal Commissioner sought revision on the basis of alleged lack of enquiry into taxability of a payment, deduction under section 35(2AB), and commission expenditure, but the Tribunal found that enquiry had in fact been made and that revision could not follow merely because a different view was preferred. The High Court treated the issue as one of fact, already resolved by the Tribunal, and held that no substantial question of law arose. The assessee therefore succeeded and the revision was not revived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the challenge to the Tribunal's order quashing revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 gave rise to any substantial question of law, or whether the controversy was confined to questions of fact concerning the adequacy of enquiry by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The assessment had been completed under section 143(3) after scrutiny under section 143(2), and the Principal Commissioner invoked section 263 on the footing that the Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiry on the taxability of a payment, the claim for deduction under section 35(2AB), and commission expenditure. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the record, held that enquiry had in fact been made and that the assessment order could not be revised merely because the revisional authority preferred a different view. The High Court held that the real controversy was whether enquiry had been conducted and whether the Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view on the materials placed before him. That question was treated as one of fact, already decided by the Tribunal, and did not generate any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The revision under section 263 was not revived, and the assessee succeeded because the appeal failed to raise any substantial question of law.

---