https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183335 Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Assessing Officer had not carried out meaningful inquiry into core matters, including claimed agricultural income, opening cash balance, cash deposits, investments in immovable assets, and seized material. This failure was treated as lack of inquiry, not merely inadequate inquiry, because the Assessing Officer must act as investigator as well as adjudicator. On the recorded facts, the Commissioner's finding of non-application of mind justified fresh assessment, and the challenge to the revisionary order failed. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:27:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183335 Revision under section 263 was upheld because the assessment order was both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The Assessing Officer had not carried out meaningful inquiry into core matters, including claimed agricultural income, opening cash balance, cash deposits, investments in immovable assets, and seized material. This failure was treated as lack of inquiry, not merely inadequate inquiry, because the Assessing Officer must act as investigator as well as adjudicator. On the recorded facts, the Commissioner's finding of non-application of mind justified fresh assessment, and the challenge to the revisionary order failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183335