https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471184 Revisionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised on an incorrect factual premise where the assessment record shows that the Assessing Officer examined and accepted the explanation for cash deposits. The revision relied on a deposit figure inconsistent with departmental bank details, while the assessment had already obtained information, considered the taxpayer's response and made no addition. The alleged inadequate enquiry was therefore factually unsustainable, rendering the revision order without valid jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Aug 2026 18:59:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471184 Revisionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised on an incorrect factual premise where the assessment record shows that the Assessing Officer examined and accepted the explanation for cash deposits. The revision relied on a deposit figure inconsistent with departmental bank details, while the assessment had already obtained information, considered the taxpayer's response and made no addition. The alleged inadequate enquiry was therefore factually unsustainable, rendering the revision order without valid jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471184