TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and setting aside the reassessment order on the ground that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the allegation of cash payment to a third party.
Analysis: The reassessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had reopened the matter on the very allegation in question, issued specific queries, called for details, sought an affidavit from the concerned third party, and considered the assessee's replies and supporting ledger and invoice material. The affidavit filed by the third party was not shown to be contradicted by any specific material from the survey proceedings. In these circumstances, the record disclosed application of mind and enquiry by the Assessing Officer. Section 263 could not be exercised merely because the revisional authority took a different view on the adequacy or appreciation of the material, especially when the factual foundation for treating the assessment order as erroneous was not demonstrated.
Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was not justified and the revisional order was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Revision under section 263 cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer has made enquiry on the issue, considered the material, and the revisional authority does not identify a specific error causing prejudice to the revenue.
TaxTMI 
