https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55617 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order passed under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, as it was effectively an order by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the ITO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as releasing seized assets did not jeopardize future tax recovery. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order under section 263 and restored the ITO's original order, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee. en-us Sat, 04 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:20:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55617 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the order passed under section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act, as it was effectively an order by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the ITO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as releasing seized assets did not jeopardize future tax recovery. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order under section 263 and restored the ITO's original order, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 04 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55617