TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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: (i) Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the premise that the Assessing Officer failed to tax the excess stock found during survey under Section 69 and Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis: The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had called for details regarding the excess stock found during survey under Section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, examined the return, audited accounts, schedules, and reply of the assessee, and thereafter accepted the surrendered amount as business income. The revisional power under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be exercised only where the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. On the facts, the Assessing Officer had taken a conscious view after inquiry and verification, and the mere fact that the Principal Commissioner preferred a different tax treatment did not make the assessment order erroneous.
Conclusion: The invocation of Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was not sustainable and the revision order was liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has made inquiry, applied mind, and adopted a plausible view; a mere difference of opinion on taxability does not render the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
