https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794467 Revision under section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had made an addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases after inquiry and adopted a legally plausible view. The Principal Commissioner could not invoke revision merely to substitute a different approach by insisting that the entire amount be added under section 69C and taxed under section 115BBE. The Tribunal and HC held that this was not a case of lack of inquiry, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Tribunal's order was upheld. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jul 2026 08:26:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794467 Revision under section 263 was not justified where the Assessing Officer had made an addition of 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases after inquiry and adopted a legally plausible view. The Principal Commissioner could not invoke revision merely to substitute a different approach by insisting that the entire amount be added under section 69C and taxed under section 115BBE. The Tribunal and HC held that this was not a case of lack of inquiry, and the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Tribunal's order was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794467