https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388932 The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee should not be penalized for the Authorized Representative's ignorance. Regarding the legitimacy of the revisional jurisdiction exercised under Section 263, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries into alleged bogus purchases, accepting them as genuine based on confirmations and payment evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's actions were reasonable, quashing the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 and allowing the appeals of the assessee. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Nov 2019 13:36:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388932 The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing that the assessee should not be penalized for the Authorized Representative's ignorance. Regarding the legitimacy of the revisional jurisdiction exercised under Section 263, the Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries into alleged bogus purchases, accepting them as genuine based on confirmations and payment evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's actions were reasonable, quashing the Principal Commissioner's order under Section 263 and allowing the appeals of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 22 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388932