Sh. Sanjeev Singh, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 1781/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Sanjeev Singh, Vs Pr. Cit, 861, Sector-9 U.E, Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Chkps0618H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Somil Aggarwal & Sobhit Revenue By : Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd February, 2016 Passed U/S 263(1) Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, Karnal, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th July, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,58,105/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 10Th January, 2014 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.6,30,545/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. Subsequently, The Ld.Cit Issued
For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)
…the ld.CIT does not agree with the extent of inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer as sufficient, he cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act. 13. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Leisure Wear Export reported in 341 ITR 166, has observed as under:- “The power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the Assessing Officer to hold another investigation without describing as to how the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. From this it also follows that where the assessment order has been passed by the Assessing Officer after taking…
