The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' under S.263(1) of the Income-tax Act and its application to the case.

1. The unsuccessful assessee is the appellant in this appeal, by special leave, which arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in ITR No. 15 of 1990 passed on October 22,1991. By the impugned order the High Court answered 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 before the Commissioner of Income-tax that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue?

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

2. 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 company. It entered into an agreement for sale of the estate of rubber plantation 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, inter alia, for payment of the consideration in instalments as scheduled therein. However, the purchaser could not adhere to the schedule and on this request the parties agreed to extension of time for payment of the instalments on condition of his paying compensation/ 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 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 appellant, under S.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 the appellant filed its reply the Commissioner, by order dated February 8/9,1988, concluded that said amount was unconnected with any agricultural operation activity and was liable 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 Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed on August 5,1988. On the application of the appellant under S.256(1) of the Act, the aforementioned questions were referred to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.

3. Mr. Roy Abraham, 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 S.263(1) of the Act was not only unwarranted but also illegal; he contended 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 prejudicial 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.

4. Mr. Anoop G. Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent, asserted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order without application of mind and in asmuch it resulted in loss of tax it was also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, therefore, the exerci