https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788431 ITAT held that Explanation 2 permits revisional action where an assessing officer failed to make inquiries or verifications which should have been made, and on the facts found the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial, warranting setting aside for de novo assessment. The Tribunal ruled a promptly issued corrigendum cured an inadvertent naming error where no procedural prejudice arose. It also concluded that assessments completed under the faceless assessment scheme are not immune from revisionary jurisdiction and remain subject to review when jurisdictional conditions are satisfied. The appeal against the revisional order was dismissed and the section 263 order upheld as rectified. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Mar 2026 08:29:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788431 ITAT held that Explanation 2 permits revisional action where an assessing officer failed to make inquiries or verifications which should have been made, and on the facts found the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial, warranting setting aside for de novo assessment. The Tribunal ruled a promptly issued corrigendum cured an inadvertent naming error where no procedural prejudice arose. It also concluded that assessments completed under the faceless assessment scheme are not immune from revisionary jurisdiction and remain subject to review when jurisdictional conditions are satisfied. The appeal against the revisional order was dismissed and the section 263 order upheld as rectified. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788431