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: Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for alleged lack of inquiry into the cash advances received on behalf of the assessee's sons.
Analysis: The assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had reopened the case, called for the assessee's explanation, examined supporting material such as mandi receipts, khasra and khatauni records, and recorded the statements of all four buyers on oath. The buyers' statements were placed on record without adverse comment, and the sale deeds, notes and affidavits further corroborated the explanation that the cash was received as advance towards sale of agricultural land. The land was agricultural land and the receipt was treated as part of that transaction. In these circumstances, the order could not be branded as erroneous merely because the revisional authority preferred a different inference or considered the inquiry to be insufficient. Suspicion could not replace evidence, and a plausible view taken on inquiry already conducted could not be revised under section 263.
Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 was not justified. The order was held to be in favour of the assessee, and the revision was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Revision under section 263 cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer has made inquiries, applied mind to the material, and adopted a plausible view; mere dissatisfaction with the depth of inquiry or a different suspicion-based view does not establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
