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 revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was valid where the assessment order had examined agricultural income and made an addition under section 69A, and whether the Commissioner could substitute an estimate of agricultural income and direct taxation under section 115BBE without establishing unexplained money or valuable article.
Analysis: The assessment was selected specifically to verify the genuineness of agricultural income, and the Assessing Officer had examined the issue during scrutiny and taken a conscious view by withdrawing exemption and making an addition under section 69A. On the record, the assessee had produced land records, sale bills, bank statements, expenditure details and supplier confirmations, showing agricultural operations. The revisional order proceeded mainly on estimation and on the view that further enquiry was required, but mere inadequacy of enquiry or a different possible view does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of both error and prejudice. Section 69A applies only where unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is found, and no such foundational finding was recorded. The revisional authority therefore travelled beyond limited revisional jurisdiction by virtually conducting a fresh assessment and directing taxation under section 115BBE on assumptions.
Conclusion: Revision under section 263 was not sustainable, the revisional order was quashed, and the assessment order was restored in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked merely because the Commissioner considers the enquiry inadequate or prefers a different estimate; where the Assessing Officer has examined the issue and a foundational fact for section 69A is absent, the revisional order is invalid.
TaxTMI 
