Allowing the appeal the Court held that \u00a0it was clear that the assessee was confronted with all the facets of the claim and had furnished the requisite information based on which the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment. The assessee had clarified the confusion of the figures noted considering which the Principal Commissioner did not establish the order to be prejudicial. The term \u201crecords\u201d not only means records available with the Income-tax Officer at the time of passing the assessment order but also includes records available with the Commissioner at the time of passing his order. The Assessing Officer had called for the details on as many as nine aspects and had examined the issues before allowing the assessee\u2019s claim. Once the Assessing Officer, based on the details placed on record, takes up a plausible view of the matter, it could not be subjected to revision under section\u00a0263\u00a0even in light of the revised\u00a0Explanation 2\u00a0thereto. The jurisdiction under section\u00a0263\u00a0could not be invoked for making short enquiries or go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more inquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. As the Assessing Officer had passed the assessment order after relevant inquiries, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner was not in accordance with law. Revision order is quashed.(AY. 2018-19)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Discrepancy in sales promotion expenses-Clarified by assessee-Plausible view after relevant inquiries-Revision is not valid.[S.37(1), 143(3), Explanation 2 to S. 263] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50096","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-d20","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50096","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50096"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50096\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50097,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50096\/revisions\/50097"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50096"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50096"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50096"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}