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 exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that the assessment order was passed without making the requisite inquiries or verifications in relation to the claim under section 54B and the alleged excess evaporation loss of petrol and diesel.
Analysis: The assessment record did not disclose any specific inquiry or verification by the Assessing Officer on the disputed claims. General call for details, without meaningful examination of the material or follow-up verification, was treated as insufficient. The order was therefore found to attract Explanation 2(a) to section 263, under which an order passed without inquiries or verification which should have been made is deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The plea of change of opinion was rejected because the record did not show that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the specific issues now revised.
Conclusion: The revisional order was held to be valid, and the challenge to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 failed.
Final Conclusion: The assessment was validly set aside for fresh examination of the disputed claims, and the assessee obtained no relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessment order is passed without conducting the inquiries or verifications that ought to have been made on material issues, the order is deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and is amenable to revision under section 263.
TaxTMI 
