https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428244 Revision proceedings were not invalid merely because the section 263 notice was issued in the name of a deceased assessee, since the legal representative was aware of the proceedings, participated in them, and no prejudice was shown; the defect was treated as procedural rather than jurisdictional. A revision under section 263 was also justified where a limited-scrutiny assessment failed to examine a material claim of agricultural income linked to cash deposits, because lack of inquiry on an essential issue permits revisional interference, including under Explanation 2 to section 263(1). The revisional order was therefore upheld and the assessment was set aside for fresh consideration. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Sep 2022 15:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428244 Revision proceedings were not invalid merely because the section 263 notice was issued in the name of a deceased assessee, since the legal representative was aware of the proceedings, participated in them, and no prejudice was shown; the defect was treated as procedural rather than jurisdictional. A revision under section 263 was also justified where a limited-scrutiny assessment failed to examine a material claim of agricultural income linked to cash deposits, because lack of inquiry on an essential issue permits revisional interference, including under Explanation 2 to section 263(1). The revisional order was therefore upheld and the assessment was set aside for fresh consideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428244