https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58812 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the ITO's order under section 132(5) as it was appealable and subject to revision. The Tribunal found the ITO's order to be based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, directing the ITO to pass a fresh order determining the seized assets' amounts and retaining assets to satisfy specified amounts under section 132(5). The appeal was dismissed. en-us Mon, 17 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:00:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58812 The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the ITO's order under section 132(5) as it was appealable and subject to revision. The Tribunal found the ITO's order to be based on assumptions rather than concrete evidence, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, directing the ITO to pass a fresh order determining the seized assets' amounts and retaining assets to satisfy specified amounts under section 132(5). The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 17 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58812