https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424568 For limitation under section 263, the relevant date is when the revisional order is made or issued in law, and later dispatch alone does not displace the date borne on the order; the limitation objection therefore failed. The doctrine of merger did not bar revision because the prior appellate order concerned a different issue from the lack of enquiry examined in revision. An assessment passed without enquiries that ought to have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, so revision was valid on that ground. The alleged non-issue of notice under section 143(2) was not established and did not invalidate the revisional order. en-us Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2022 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424568 For limitation under section 263, the relevant date is when the revisional order is made or issued in law, and later dispatch alone does not displace the date borne on the order; the limitation objection therefore failed. The doctrine of merger did not bar revision because the prior appellate order concerned a different issue from the lack of enquiry examined in revision. An assessment passed without enquiries that ought to have been made is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, so revision was valid on that ground. The alleged non-issue of notice under section 143(2) was not established and did not invalidate the revisional order. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424568