https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67418 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act as the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted inquiries and applied his mind. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot substitute his judgment for that of the AO unless the AO's decision is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order for all four assessment years, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee. en-us Wed, 07 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Mar 2011 14:43:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67418 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act as the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted inquiries and applied his mind. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT cannot substitute his judgment for that of the AO unless the AO's decision is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order for all four assessment years, allowing the appeals filed by the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67418