https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71886 Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 requires the Commissioner to identify both an error in the assessment order and real prejudice to the Revenue. Where the assessee's accounts were audited, quantitative details were on record, and the stock valuation method was disclosed in the audit material, revision could not rest merely on a view that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiry. The absence of a detailed assessment order, by itself, was insufficient when relevant material was already available and no specific adverse material showing prejudice was identified. The section 263 revision was therefore not justified and the order setting aside the assessment was without jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71886 Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 requires the Commissioner to identify both an error in the assessment order and real prejudice to the Revenue. Where the assessee's accounts were audited, quantitative details were on record, and the stock valuation method was disclosed in the audit material, revision could not rest merely on a view that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiry. The absence of a detailed assessment order, by itself, was insufficient when relevant material was already available and no specific adverse material showing prejudice was identified. The section 263 revision was therefore not justified and the order setting aside the assessment was without jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71886