ORDER

Arijit Pasayat, CJ.

1. Since questions referred in these two reference applications are identical, this common judgment will dispose of both the references.

2. On being moved by the assessee, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (for short the Tribunal), under Section 27(1) of the Wealthtax Act, 1957 (for short the Act) has referred the following question for opinion of this Court:

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was not without jurisdiction and was valid in law ?"

3. The factual position, as set out in the statement of the case, is as follows:

Assessee filed returns of wealth for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 for which the corresponding valuation dates were 31st December, 1968 and 31st December, 1969 respectively. On these dates the assessee held shares in different companies of the values of Rs.7,58,791/- and Rs.7,58,801/- respectively. Assessments were originally completed. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (for short the Commissioner) examined the records and formed an opinion that orders of the Assessing officer for both these years were erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, issued notices to the assessee calling upon him to show cause why the valuation of shares should not be determined in accordance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 (for short the Rules). It was also pointed out that in the case of investment companies, the market value is the break up value estimated in accordance with Rule 1D or the value arrived at on the basis of maintainable profits, whichever is higher. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner to issue notice was questioned by the assessee. However, the Commissioner felt that orders passed by the WTO were not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, orders of the WTO were set aside. The matter was carried in appeals before the Tribunal. It upheld the conclusions of the Commissioner. It was specifically noted by the Tribunal that Circular No. 2(WT) of 1967 was applicable to the facts of the case. Assessee's appeals were, therefore, dismissed. On being moved by the assessee, aforesaid question has been referred for opinion of this Court.

4. There is no appearance on behalf of the assessee inspite of service of notice. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue.

5. What constitutes an erroneous order which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue has been dealt with by various Courts including the Apex Court. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 the matter was again examined by the Apex Court and it was observed as follows:

"The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the 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 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 unsustainable in law. It has been 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 the interests of the Revenue".

6. The scope of interference under Section 263 is not to set aside merely unfavourable orders and bring some more revenue. The object is not to get at sheer escapment of revenue. Several factors have to be kept in view and features noticed before pow