https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793032 Revision under section 263 was upheld because the Assessing Officer had not verified whether the claim described as provision for bad and doubtful debts had actually been written off in the books; the assessee was still pursuing recovery, so the necessary condition for allowance was not met. The assessment was therefore treated as lacking the enquiries required by law, bringing Explanation 2(a) to section 263(1) into play. The objection regarding incorrect adoption of assessed income and excess demand was also sustained, with the Tribunal noting that any computational mistake could be addressed separately by rectification, but it did not affect the validity of the revisional order and fresh verification direction. en-us Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jun 2026 08:52:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793032 Revision under section 263 was upheld because the Assessing Officer had not verified whether the claim described as provision for bad and doubtful debts had actually been written off in the books; the assessee was still pursuing recovery, so the necessary condition for allowance was not met. The assessment was therefore treated as lacking the enquiries required by law, bringing Explanation 2(a) to section 263(1) into play. The objection regarding incorrect adoption of assessed income and excess demand was also sustained, with the Tribunal noting that any computational mistake could be addressed separately by rectification, but it did not affect the validity of the revisional order and fresh verification direction. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 13 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793032