https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184517 The Commissioner could not use revisional power under section 34 to interfere with an Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order where the Act provided a specific appellate route, and the objection arose from the Commissioner himself; revisional jurisdiction could not be used to bypass that hierarchy. The Commissioner also could not reject the assessee's regularly kept accounts or set aside the assessment on mere suspicion, conjecture, or inspection impressions. Rejection of accounts required positive material showing unreliability, and any doubt had to be tested against relevant evidence. The ruling states that the assessee's books could not be discarded on bare surmise and that revisional interference in these circumstances was without jurisdiction. en-us Thu, 20 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:20:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184517 The Commissioner could not use revisional power under section 34 to interfere with an Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order where the Act provided a specific appellate route, and the objection arose from the Commissioner himself; revisional jurisdiction could not be used to bypass that hierarchy. The Commissioner also could not reject the assessee's regularly kept accounts or set aside the assessment on mere suspicion, conjecture, or inspection impressions. Rejection of accounts required positive material showing unreliability, and any doubt had to be tested against relevant evidence. The ruling states that the assessee's books could not be discarded on bare surmise and that revisional interference in these circumstances was without jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 20 Dec 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184517