https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24438 Failure to cancel an assessee-firm's registration was not, by itself, an error justifying revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Cancellation was not automatic on every default connected with section 144; the Revenue had to assess whether the default was wilful, and only a wilful default could justify denial of continued registration. In the absence of wilful default, the original grant or continuation of registration could not be treated as prejudicial error for section 263 purposes. The High Court therefore held that the Income-tax Officer's order suffered from no error and the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere. en-us Tue, 22 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:38:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24438 Failure to cancel an assessee-firm's registration was not, by itself, an error justifying revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Cancellation was not automatic on every default connected with section 144; the Revenue had to assess whether the default was wilful, and only a wilful default could justify denial of continued registration. In the absence of wilful default, the original grant or continuation of registration could not be treated as prejudicial error for section 263 purposes. The High Court therefore held that the Income-tax Officer's order suffered from no error and the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to interfere. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24438