How many judgments cite CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.?

897 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 10(37).

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167High Court2011#54 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly reflect an inquiry, or because the Commissioner holds a different opinion. An inquiry, even if considered inadequate, or an assessment based on a plausible view by the Assessing Officer after due examination, does not automatically make the order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

897

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. · Sunbeam Auto Ltd. · Section 263 · Commissioner revisionary powers · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · plausible view AO · not prejudicial to revenue · assessment order detail · different opinion Commissioner · 143(3) scrutiny assessment

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 436227 CTR 13331 DTR 189 Taxmann.com 191

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 147

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145b section 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)inadequate enquiry section 56(2)(viii)lack of enquiry section 10(37)enhanced compensation malabar industrial section 263(1)section 145a

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

Mahesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 936/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…t is not such and every error in assessment that invites exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, but only orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 6.7 Further, Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto ITR 332 ITR 167 (Del), wherein, while considering the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, the Hon'ble court held that where the AO had made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 on the ground of inadequate inquiry: “12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side…

Mahesh Reddy, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

ITA 1379/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. & Ms. Girija G.P., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…e, it is not such and every error in assessment that invites exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, but only orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 6.7 Further, Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del), wherein, while considering the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, the Hon'ble court held that where the AO had made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 on the ground of inadequate inquiry: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side…

Dee Are Texfab Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 743/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.743/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. The Pcit 149, New Cloth Market बनाम/ Ahmedabad-1 O/S. Raipur Gate Raipur V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecd 5136 H (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) …. ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Pr.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 27/03/20223 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…atement of Sanjay Tibrewal group, our case is mistakenly reopened and accordingly addition is proposed, which is factually incorrect.” 2.6. The assessee also placed reliance on some judicial precedents before PCIT: a. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). b. Smt.Juthika Kar vs. ITO in ITA No.1128/Kol/2009 dated 16.05.2012. c. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB). d. CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (All.)(HC). Dee Are Texfab Pvt.Ltd. vs. The Pr.CIT Asst. Year : 2014-15 6 e. Hero Briggs & Stratton Auto Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 127 (Delhi) (Trib.). f…

Bnp Paribas, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2521/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, A/RFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Dhyani, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28GSection 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…rt of the Assessing Officer to disclose his satisfaction in the Assessment Order passed thereon. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue cannot be accepted." 18. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 has held as held as under: "12. We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act. As noted above, the submission of learned counsel for I.T.A. No. 2521/Mum/2024 12 the R…

Hbc Lifesciences Private Limited, Gandhinagar vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 328/Ahd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) िनधा"रण वष" Hbc Lifesciences Private Principal Commissioner बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Limited Of Income Tax-3 Vs. B-218, Mayur House, Ahmedabad G.I.D.C., Electronic Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, 382016 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacch1407M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Parin Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Pcit’) Dated 25.03.2023 In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short], For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30.10.2018 Declaring

For Appellant: Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…his condition is not found fulfilled in this case as the AO had made detailed inquiries on the issue of business expenditure in the course of assessment proceedings. It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) that one has to see from the records as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure and one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under Section 2…

Patchirajan Lakshmanan, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…on the following case laws in raising objections for invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act: 1. CIT vs Krishna Capbox Ltd [2015] 372 ITIZ. 310 2. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd [2012] 28 Taxmann.com 273/[2013] 3. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2011] 332 ITR 167 4. Idea Cellular Ltd vs DCIT &Ors. [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) 5. CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd [2015] 372 ITR 303/230 :-7-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 6. CIT vs Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698 7. CIT vsMahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 7. Further, the assessee also stated that the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act…

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…aws: a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (243 ITR 83) b) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) c) K.R. Satyanarayana Vs. CIT (279 Taxman 175) d) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) e) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537) f) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) g) CIT Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (360 ITR 44) h) The Totgars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. PCIT (ITA No.168/Bang/2023) i) The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.892/Kol/2019) 4. The ld. D.R. submitted that there was no proper verification of this expenditure by ld. AO at the time of assessment. It…

Aargee Enterprises, Kaithal vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Rawla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…. 406 to 409/Chd/2021 dt. 16/03/2023), Bindas Foods Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 409/CHD/2021and Bajaj Sons vs DCIT (ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019); and the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del) and CIT vs Sun Beam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del). 10. Per contra, the Ld. CIT/DR supported the order and the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT. It was submitted that during the course of survey, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- which is in the nature of excess stock and excess cash which was not accounted for in the books of accounts. It was submitted that assessee in…

Jai Parkash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…PCIT that it is a case of no enquiry' or ‘lack of enquiry'. No doubt that the Ld. AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and Hon'ble Raiasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.). An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case…

Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 78/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 78/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Principal Commissioner Of 10, Opera Society, Vs. Income Tax-1, Vibhag-2, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Askps2898E

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…t the assessment order cannot held as erroneous in so far prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of non-verification. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.). The Hon’ble Court made a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The Hon’ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. The relevant observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “12.…

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 263Section 92C

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of “lack of inquiry” and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180) : “that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter.” No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.” 24. In Ashish Rajpal as well, this Court was of the view that the fact that a query was raised durin…

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

…by invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There were a number of judgments by various Hon’ble High Courts in this regard. 7.2 Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), made a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The Hon’ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of inadequate inquiry. The relevant observation of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as under: “12. ….. There are jud…

Shree Alekh, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…21) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.)” 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that inadequacy of inquiry by the Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- “CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited – 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma – 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers – 341 ITR 537 (Delhi)” 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the PCIT has rightly invoked the revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act as the Assessing Officer has not examined the aspect of addition under section 69A in consonance with the taxing income under Section 115…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ause the revisionary authority feels and opines that further enquiry/investigation was required or deeper or further scrutiny should be undertaken. These decisions are also to this effect : ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 54 i) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd ii) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers Income Tax Appellate Tribunal iii) ITA No. 7265/D/2017 dated 27.1.2020 M/s Klaxon Trading (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (Delhi Tribunal) iv) ITA No. 1781/D/2016 dated 24.4.2019 Sanjeev Singh vs. PCIT (Delhi Tribunal ) 15.5 Then, it is also settled that for holding that the assessmen…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Delhi vs. M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1428/2018HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180) : "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.” 24. In Ashish Rajpal as well, this Court was of the view that the fact that a query was raised d…

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ion of the material available on record, the order passed by AO can neither said to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and held that, ‘in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked.’ It may however, be noted that the instance case is neither the case of inadequate enquiry nor lack of enquiry during assessment proceedings as it ca…

Manuj Jain HUF, Ludhiana vs. PCIT -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

…in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and he cannot simply set aside the order of the Ld. AO for further enquiries. In support of his aforesaid contentions, the ld AR has relied on the decisions in case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Delhi), Ganpati International, Jagraon vs PCIT (in ITA No. 932/Chandi/2019) and others. It was accordingly submitted that in view of the same, the order so passed by the ld PCIT be set-aside and that of the AO be confirmed. 12. Per contra, the Ld. CIT/DR has relied on the findings of the…

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

…CIT that it is a case of ‘no enquiry’ or ‘lack of enquiry’. No doubt that the Ld. AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.). An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case…