https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798907 Before 1 April 2025, the Joint Commissioner held authority to impose penalties for contravention of Section 269SS, while the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate or impose penalty under Section 271D. Accordingly, an Assessing Officer's failure to initiate such penalty proceedings could not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revision purposes under Section 263. Revision on that ground was therefore invalid, and the revision order was set aside in favour of the assessee. en-us Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 08:32:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798907 Before 1 April 2025, the Joint Commissioner held authority to impose penalties for contravention of Section 269SS, while the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to initiate or impose penalty under Section 271D. Accordingly, an Assessing Officer's failure to initiate such penalty proceedings could not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for revision purposes under Section 263. Revision on that ground was therefore invalid, and the revision order was set aside in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798907