Chroma Business Ltd. v. DCIT

82 TTJ 540Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2004#3114 most cited

What is Chroma Business Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer made a brief assessment order without discussing details that were previously inquired into and satisfied. Revision under section 263 is only permissible in cases of a lack of inquiry.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Chroma Business Ltd v DCIT · 82 TTJ 540 · section 263 · prejudicial to interest of revenue · lack of inquiry · inadequate enquiry · assessment order brief · section 143(3) · revision u/s 263 · Principal Commissioner of Income-tax · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 1961Section 115BBESection 69ASection 43BSection 147

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbaprejudicial to interest of revenuesection 114inadequate enquirysection 147rlack of enquirymalabar industrialrevision u/s 263revision under section 263violation of natural justicesection 69bprincipal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Chroma Business Ltd. v. DCIT

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 192/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under: " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under: " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…to the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. The above are also applicable in the present case. In case of Chorma Business Ltd v/s DPR. CIT 82 TTJ 540(Cal) it has been held that “AO before making the assessment, having called for details and having discussed the matter with the A/R of the assessee, such an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue only because the AO made a brief assessment order without discussing such details therein. Further, the Pr. CIT…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…o the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. The above are also applicable in the present case. In case of Chorma Business Ltd v/s DPR. CIT 82 TTJ 540(Cal) it has been held that “AO before making the assessment, having called for details and having discussed the matter with the A/R of the assessee, such an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue only because the AO made a brief assessment order without discussing such details therein. Further, the Pr. CIT…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…o the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. The above are also applicable in the present case. In case of Chorma Business Ltd v/s DPR. CIT 82 TTJ 540(Cal) it has been held that “AO before making the assessment, having called for details and having discussed the matter with the A/R of the assessee, such an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue only because the AO made a brief assessment order without discussing such details therein. Further, the Pr. CIT…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…o the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. The above are also applicable in the present case. In case of Chorma Business Ltd v/s DPR. CIT 82 TTJ 540(Cal) it has been held that “AO before making the assessment, having called for details and having discussed the matter with the A/R of the assessee, such an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue only because the AO made a brief assessment order without discussing such details therein. Further, the Pr. CIT…

Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…e prejudicial to interest of revenue - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribuna Whether, therefore, Tribunal was justified in setting aside order of Commissioner justified in setting aside order of Commissioner - Held, yes  Chroma Business Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal.) Chroma Business Ltd. v. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal.) Section 263 of the Income Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Assessment year 1997 Assessment year 1997-98 - Whether where Assessing Officer, before completing assessment Whether…

Padam Kumae Jain, Ranchi vs. CIT, Central, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answere…

Gouri Shankar Goyal, Siliguri vs. I.T.O.Ward-1(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.517/Kol/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) Gouri Shankar Goyal Vs. Pcit, Siliguri

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : Gouri Shankar Goyal Assessment Year:2014-15 " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny…

Shri Pramod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1136/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answere…

Sandip Kumar Tekriwal HUF, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1135/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answere…

Binod Kumar Tekriwal HUF, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1134/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answere…

M/S. Y.R. Traders (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1006/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1006/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answere…

M/S. Jabibur Rahaman, Murshidabad vs. Principal CIT - 14, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1171/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 147Section 263

…ion order is indeed unsustainable in law. It is not a case in which adequate enquiries has not been carried out. ” 12. On the same facts we also rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal). Further our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under: "This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing officer which was answered to the satis…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

Sahabuddin Quadiri, Murshidabad vs. DCIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…fferent opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open." 21. On the same facts we also rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal). Further our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under: "This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing officer which was answered to the satis…

Sree Alankar, Ganjam vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…. Such an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue only because the A.O. made the assessment without discussing such details therein, as held by the Hon'ble Tribunal, Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal). Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : "This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answer…

Shri Suman Sharma, Durgapur vs. PCIT, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2017AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S. Biswas, CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 41Section 43B

…erest of the revenue. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del) as well as the decision of this Tribunal in the case Chroma Business Ltd. vs DCIT – (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal). He also relied on the decision of Allhabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. (2015)372 ITR 310 (All) wherein it was held that once enquiry was made by the AO, a mere non-discussion in the assessment order could not lead to assumption that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind or that he had not made enquiry jus…