https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763798 The court concluded that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (Pr. CIT) invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified. The Assessing Officer (AO) conducted an adequate inquiry, and the AO's decision was deemed a plausible view. The Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to question the AO's inquiry, which had been addressed under Section 147. Additionally, the Pr. CIT's use of Section 263 to address an arithmetical error was inappropriate, as such errors should be corrected under Section 154. The appeal was allowed, upholding the AO's assessment and directing correction of the arithmetical error under Section 154. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:30:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763798 The court concluded that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax's (Pr. CIT) invocation of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 was unjustified. The Assessing Officer (AO) conducted an adequate inquiry, and the AO's decision was deemed a plausible view. The Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to question the AO's inquiry, which had been addressed under Section 147. Additionally, the Pr. CIT's use of Section 263 to address an arithmetical error was inappropriate, as such errors should be corrected under Section 154. The appeal was allowed, upholding the AO's assessment and directing correction of the arithmetical error under Section 154. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763798