https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787701 Where an Assessing Officer examined and accepted documentary evidence explaining the source of funds for an immovable property investment, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be validly invoked merely by substituting the revisional authority's view; interference requires the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue because the AO failed to apply his mind or took a view no reasonable authority could take. Applying that principle, the AO's consideration of bank statements, ledger entries and explanations established a reasoned assessment, so the Section 263 revision was set aside and the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Mar 2026 08:17:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787701 Where an Assessing Officer examined and accepted documentary evidence explaining the source of funds for an immovable property investment, the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 cannot be validly invoked merely by substituting the revisional authority's view; interference requires the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue because the AO failed to apply his mind or took a view no reasonable authority could take. Applying that principle, the AO's consideration of bank statements, ledger entries and explanations established a reasoned assessment, so the Section 263 revision was set aside and the appeal allowed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 17 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787701