Holding

Section 263(1) is applicable only when the assessing officer's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; in this case the order was erroneous and thus prejudicial, and the amount is taxable as income from other sources.

Summary

The appellant, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., sold a rubber plantation estate and, after the purchaser defaulted on instalments, agreed to receive Rs. 3,66,649 as compensation for loss of agricultural income. The amount was recorded as such in the return and the Income‑Tax Officer gave a nil assessment. The Commissioner, invoking Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, held the nil assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue and taxed the amount under "income from other sources". The Tribunal and the Kerala High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge. The Supreme Court held that Section 263(1) can be invoked only when an order is both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue; loss of tax can constitute prejudice if the order is erroneous. It found the assessing officer had not applied his mind, making the order erroneous, and consequently the amount was taxable as income from other sources, not agricultural income. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act can be invoked when the assessing officer's order is erroneous but not prejudicial, or prejudicial but not erroneous.
Whether a loss of tax alone makes an order prejudicial to the interests of revenue.
Whether the amount of Rs. 3,66,649 received as compensation/damages constitutes agricultural income within the meaning of Section 2(1A) of the Act.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 2(1A), s. 256(1), s. 263(1)

Subjects

Income TaxSection 263revision of assessmentprejudicial to revenueagricultural incomecompensationdamagesnil assessmentincome from other sources

Judgment

A M;S. MALABAR lNDVSTRlAL CO. LTD.
v.
COMMISSIO:-."ER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA STATE
>
FEBRUARY 10, 2r:oo

B ID.P. WADHWA AND S.S. MOHA'vlMBD QCADRI, JJ.I

Income Tax Act. 1961: Section 26.r--Damages;compensation nceived
by the appellallt in lieu of late payment of the sale cumideration against sale
of rnbber plantation Accepted by the Income·-tax Officer a.1 damages for loss
C of agricultural incom< and nil assessment order passed-Commissioner uj
Income· tax held the said order to be prejudicial tu che interests of
Revenue--Ordered that it should be taxed undi:r the head 'income from other
sources'-Appeal before the Tribunal and subsequently, reference to the High
Court dismissed-On appeal, Held : Section 263 of the Act can be invoked
D 011(v when the order uf the Assessi11g Officer is emmeuus and is prejudicial
to the illterest of Reve11u~ -Camwt be i11voked to co1Tect each and every type
of e1Tor committtd by rhe Assessing Officer- ·The said additio11al amount paid
by purchaser of the plantatio11 did not relate to any agricultural operation
carried on by the appellant-Rightly taxed as 'income from other sources'.

E Words & Phrases:

'Pri.:judicial ro tl1e i11te1nt< of the Revenue '-Meaning uf in !hi: conuxt
of Income Tax Act, NM. '!'---
'
The appellant company elltered into an agreement with one 'S' for
F sale of the estate of rubber plantation. According to the agreement the sale
consideration was to be paid in instalments as per schedule. On S's failure
to adhere to the schedule of payments, both the parties agreed for exten-
sion of time for payment in instalments. This extension was made subject
to the payment of compensation/damages for loss of agricultural income.
Accordingly, the appellant passed a resolution to that effect and S also
G paid such amount. In the Income tax assessment of the appellant for the
relevant year the said amount was noted as compensation and damages
for loss of agricultural income. The Income Tax Officer accepted the same
and endorsed nil assessment for that year. The Commissioner of Income
Tax, on examination of records, found the said nil assessment order to be
H erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. After a show cause
744
MALABAR INDCSTRIAL CO.LTD. v. C.l.T. 745

notice to the appellant under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and A
receiving reply of the appellant, the Commissioner concluded that the said
amount was unconnected with any agricultural operation activity ~nd was
liable to be taxed under the head 'income from other sources'. Appeal
preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed. Ref-
erence to the High Court under Section 256 of the Act was also dismissed.
B
Hence the present appeal.

The appellant contended that the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Commissioner was unwarranted and illegal and mere loss of tax could not
be treated as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. It was also contended
that the amount received as damages was in reality agriculturdl income. C

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. Section 263 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly
stipulates that exercise of jurisdiction by the Commhsioner ~uo motu D
under it requires that the order of the Income-tax Officer should be
erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to be interests of Revenue. TI1e
Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions namely; (i) the order
of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) it is
prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. If one of them is absent-if the order
of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to Revenue or E
if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to Revenue-Recourse cannot be had
to Section 263(1) of the Act. The said provision cannot be invo!ted to
correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing
Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be
attrdcted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of F
law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the same
category falls orders passed without applying the principles of natural
justice or without application of mind. [749-A-D]

1.2. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an
expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Lnderstood in its ordinary G
meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The said
phrdse has to be read in conjunction with erroneous order passed by the
Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequeni;e of an order of
the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of
the Revenue. [749-E; 750-C] H
746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) 1 S.C.R.
A Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 67 ITR 84;
Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal, 88
ITR 323; Dawjee Dadadhoy & Co. v. S.P. lain and Another, 31 ITR 872;
Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore v. T. Narayana Pai, 98 ITR 422;
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gabriel India ltd., 203 ITR 108; Commis-
B sioner of Income- tax v. Minalben S. Parikh, 215 ITR 81 and Venkatakrishna
Rice Company v. Commissioner of Income tax, 163 !TR 129, referred to.

1.3. Jn the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the Income-tax.
Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind.
Indeed, the High Court recorded the findin11 that Income-tax Officer failed
C to apply his mind to the case in alll perspective and the order passed by
him was erroneous. It appears that the resolution passed by the Board of
appellant company was not place1i before the Assessing Officer. Thus,
there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said
amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He
accepted the entry in the statement of account filed by the appellant in the
D absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. On
these facts the conclusion that the order of the Income-tax Officer was
erromneous is irresistible. (750-F-HJ

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, 32 ITR
E referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3646 of
1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.92 of the Kerala High
p Court in C.M.P. No. 4215 of 1991 in I.T.R. No. 15 of 1990.

H.N. Salve, Sudhir Gop~ Roy Abrahim, M.M. Kashyap and Dilip
Pillai for the Appellant.

Annop G. Choudhary, A. V. Rangam, B.A. Ranganathan and Shail
G Kumar Dwivedi for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SYED SHAH MOHA.i\1MED QUADRl, J, The unsuccessful assessee
is the appellant in this appeal, by special Leave, which arises from the
H Judgment ad Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala
MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. C.l.T. [QUADRI, J.J 747

... in I.T.R. No. 15of1990 passed on October 221991. By the impugned order A
the High Court answen:d the following two questions, referred to it at the
instance of the appellant, in the affirmative that is against the appellant and
in favour of the Revenue :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
that Tribunal was justified in holding that there was evidence
B
before the Commissioner of [ncome-tax that the assessment
order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 3,66,649 was a C
taxable receipt for the assessment year 1983-84'!"

The facts giving rise to these questions may be noticed here. The case
relates to the assessment year 1983-84 for which the accounting period of
the appellant ended on February 28, 1983. The appellant is a public limited D
company. It entered into an agreement for sale of the estate of rubber
p!antation measuring acres 699 of land for consideration of Rs. 210 lakhs
with M/s. Supriya Enterprises (for short 'the purchaser') on July 18, 1982.
#
The Agreement provided, i11ter alia, for payment of the consideration in
instalments as scheduled therein. However, the purchaser could not adhere
to the schedule and on his request the parties agreed to extension of time E
for payment of the instalment on condition of his paying compensa-
\ tion/damages for loss of agricultural income and other liabilities in a sum
__/
of Rs. 3,66,649. Accordingly, the appellant passed a resolution also to that
effect on September 25, 1983 and the purchaser paid the said amount. In
the annexure to the return filed by it for the assessment in question the F
amount was noted as compensation and damages for loss of agricultural
income. By Order dated October 31, 1985, the Income-tax Officer accepted
the same and endorsed nil assessment for that year. The Commissioner of
Income-tax having examined the records of the assessment found that the
nil assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and
it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He issued notice to the G
appellant, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act (for short 'the Act'),
to show cause why the order of assessment should not be set aside and Rs.
3,66,649 should not be assessed under the head 'income from other
sources'. After appellant filed its reply the Commissioner, by order dated
February 8/9, 1988, concluded that the said amount was unconnected with H
748 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 1 S.C.R.
A any agricultural opt:ration activity and was liablt: to be taxed under the
head 'income from other sources'. Dissatisfied with the Order, of the
Commissioner the appellant filed an appeal before the Income-tax Appel-
late Tribunal which was dismissed on August 5, 1988. Un the application
of the appellant under Section 256(1) of the Act, the aforementioned
B questions were referred to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

Mr. Roy Abaraham, learned counsel for the appellant, urged the very
same two contentions which were argued before the High Court, namely,
(i) that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section
263(1) of the Act was not only unwarranted but also illegal; he contended
C that mere loss of tax could not be treated as prejudicial to the interests of
the revenue and that only when the order of the Assessing Officer would
affect the administration of the revenue that it could be treated as prejudi-
cial to the revenue; (ii) that the amount of Rs. 3,66,649 was in reality
agricultural income and, therefore, ought not to have been brought to tax.

D
Mr. Anoop G . Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respon-
dent, asserted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order without ap-
plication of mind and inasmuch as it resulted in loss of tax it was also
prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, therefore, the exercise of juris-
diction under Section 263(1) of the Act by the Commissioner was justified
E and legal. He further submitted that the second contention was not open
to the appellant as the basic facts found by the Appellate Tribunal were
not questioned befon: the High Court.

To consider the first contention, it will be apt to quote Section 263(1)
p which is relevant for our purpose :

"263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue - (1) The Commis-
sioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding
under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein
by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to
G the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an
opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made
such inquiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as
the circumstances of the case justify, inclurling an ordt:r enhancing
or modifying the assessment, or cancdling the asses~ment and
H directing a fresh assessment..
MALABARlNDUS1RIALCO.LlU.v. C.l.T.[QUADRl,J.] 749

Explanation - x x x" A

A bare n:ading of this provision makes it clear that the prerequisite
to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that
the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial
to the internsts of the revenue'. The Commissioner has to bt: satisfied of
twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be B
revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the intt:rests of the revenue.
If one of them is absent - if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous
but is not prejudicial to the revenue or if it is not errom:ous but is
prejudicial to the revenue - recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of
the Act. c
There can be no doubt that the pro\'ision cannot be invoked to
correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing
Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be
attracted. An incom:ct assumption of facts or an incorrect application of D
law will satisfy the n:quirement of the order being erroneous. In the same
category fall orders passed without applying the principles. of natural
justice or without application of mind.

The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the re\'enue' is not an
expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary E
meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High
Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain and Another, 31
ITR 872, The High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income-tax,
Mysore v. T. Narayan Pai, 98 ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 and the F
High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt. Minalben S.
Parikh, 215 ITR 81 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the
revenue.

Mr. Abaraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Company v. Commis~ioner G
of Income-tax, 163 ITR 129 interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the
revenm:". The High Court held, ''In this context, it must be regarded as
involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of the
administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the Order
passed by the Income-tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern H
750 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] 1 S.C.R.
A for similar assessments, which on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner
might think to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue Administration.
In our view this interpretation is too narrow to merit acceptance. The
scheme of the Act is to levy and collt:ct tax in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. If due to
an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the revenue is losing tax
B lawfully payablt: by a person, it V'lill certainly be prejudicial to the interest
of the revenue.

The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read
in conjunction with an erroneous. order passed by the Assessing Officer.
C Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer
cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example,
when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law
and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and
the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner
D does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to
the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer
is unsustainl).ble in law. It has be1:n held by this Court that where a sum
not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering,
the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will
be erroneous and prejudicial to th1: interests of the revenue. Rampyari Devi
E Saraogi v. Commissioner of Income- tax, 67 ITR 84 and in Smt. Tara Devi
Aggmwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323.

In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the Income-tax
Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind.
F Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the Income-tax Officer
failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed
by him was erroneous. It appears that the resolution passed by the board
of the appellant-company was not placed before the Assessing Officer.
Thus, there was no material to support tht: claim of the appellant that tht:
said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He
G accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant
in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry.
On these facts the conclusion that the order of the Income-tax Officer was
erroneous is irresistible. We are, ".herefore, of the opinion that the High
Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commis-
H sioner under Section 263(1) was justified.
MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. Lm. v. C.I.T. [QUAD RI, J.J 751

The second contention has to be rejected in view of the finding of A
fact recorded by the High Court. It was not shown at any stage of the
proceedings, the amount in question was fixed or quantified as loss of
agricultural income and admittedly it is not so found by the Tribunal. The
further question whether it will be agricultural income within the meaning
of Section 2(1A) of the Act as elucidated by this Court in Commissioner
of Income-tax West Bengal, Calcutta v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy, 32 B
ITR 466 does not arise for consideration. It is evident from the Order of
the High Court that findings recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant
stopped agricultural operation in !'II ovember 1982 and the receipt under
consideration did not relate to any agricultural operation carried on by the
appellant, were not questioned before it. Though, we do not agree with the c
High Court that the said amount was paid for breach of contract as indeed
it was paid in modification/relaxation of the terms of the contract, we hold
that the High Court is justified in concluding that the said amount was a
taxable receipt under the head 'income from other sources'.

We find no merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with costs. D

R.C.K. Appeal dismissed.

'

-