https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793278 Revision under section 263 was invalid because the AO had examined the genuineness of agricultural income in scrutiny, considered supporting records, and made a conscious addition under section 69A; mere inadequacy of enquiry or a different estimate did not establish the required error and prejudice. Section 69A also could not be applied without a foundational finding of unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Commissioner exceeded revisional jurisdiction by effectively making a fresh assessment and directing taxation under section 115BBE on assumptions. The ITAT therefore quashed the revisional order and restored the assessment in favour of the assessee. en-us Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jun 2026 08:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793278 Revision under section 263 was invalid because the AO had examined the genuineness of agricultural income in scrutiny, considered supporting records, and made a conscious addition under section 69A; mere inadequacy of enquiry or a different estimate did not establish the required error and prejudice. Section 69A also could not be applied without a foundational finding of unexplained money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, and the Commissioner exceeded revisional jurisdiction by effectively making a fresh assessment and directing taxation under section 115BBE on assumptions. The ITAT therefore quashed the revisional order and restored the assessment in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793278