https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285931 Revision under section 263 was held unjustified because the assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had made enquiry, issued questionnaires, examined seized papers, recorded statements and sought directions under section 144A. The Commissioner did not show that the assessment view was unsustainable in law or that relevant material had been ignored; the revision merely sought a further enquiry into loose papers and alleged illegal gratification. The distinction between no enquiry and inadequate enquiry was treated as material, and where a plausible view has been taken after enquiry, section 263 cannot be used to substitute another view or conduct a roving exercise. The assessment order was therefore not shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. en-us Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:18:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285931 Revision under section 263 was held unjustified because the assessment record showed that the Assessing Officer had made enquiry, issued questionnaires, examined seized papers, recorded statements and sought directions under section 144A. The Commissioner did not show that the assessment view was unsustainable in law or that relevant material had been ignored; the revision merely sought a further enquiry into loose papers and alleged illegal gratification. The distinction between no enquiry and inadequate enquiry was treated as material, and where a plausible view has been taken after enquiry, section 263 cannot be used to substitute another view or conduct a roving exercise. The assessment order was therefore not shown to be both erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285931