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 263Section 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 145bsection 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)inadequate enquirysection 56(2)(viii)lack of enquirysection 10(37)enhanced compensationmalabar industrialsection 263(1)section 145a

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Ranchi vs. Pr. CIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI” BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 29/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT-Ranchi (PAN: ADLPK 6690 G) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (""यथ") 21.07.2023 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 31.07.2023 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant/ Shri Manjeet Verma, CA "नधा#$रती क" ओर से For the Respondent/ Smt. Rinku Singh, CITDR राज(व क" ओर से ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against…

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1886/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

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

…the Revenue. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) which was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Delhi). The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1170/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1167/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1166/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1165/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1164/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12, 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively Sri Muniraju Kempanna No.2231/1, ‘D’ Block ACIT Shahakaranagar Near Water Tank Central Circle-2(4) Vs. Bangalore 560 092 Bangalore PAN NO : AOOPK9420Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.R. Respondent by : Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R. Date of Hearing : 29.05.…

Jasbir Singh, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-20, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 422/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…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.” 29. 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 the Revenue was that while passi…

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

…y on the issue in hand. The law is well settled that the Assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry unless there is an established case of total lack of enquiry. Kindly refer CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (wherein Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, and it was held that: “One has to see from the record as to whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to…

Mr Ashok Khimraj Jain, Nandubar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Nashik

The appeal of the appellant is ALLOWED

ITA 154/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.154/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Ashok Khimraj Jain, Vimal Emporium, Tilak Rd., Nandurbar – 425 412 Pan : Ahppj6362E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri J.P. Chandraker सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 26/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Appeal, The Assessee Assailed The Revisionary Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 18/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Assessment Order Dt. 17/11/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle Dhule [For Short ‘Ao’] For The Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…ition laid by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in ‘CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.’ Reported in 203 ITR 108 and ‘CIT Vs Design Automobile Engineers’ reported in 323 ITR 632 (Bom), and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ‘CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd.’ reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del.) in holding that in the absence of any failure on the part of Assessing Officer in making due inquiry(ies), the first limb i.e. an assessment being erroneous fails therefore the very basis of jurisdiction of the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. 9. Before parting we also note that, the Hon’ble lordship in ‘Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT’ repo…

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ete/total lack of inquiry. Law is well settled that the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry. Unless there is an established case of total lack of enquiry. Kindly refer CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (del), wherein Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, and it was held that one has to see from the record as to whether where was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to ke…

Rajendrasinh Manubha Jethwa, Porbandar vs. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Rajendrasinh Manubha CIT, Jethwa, Porbandar Jamnagar, Jamnagar PAN: AHAPJ1839P Vs (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.R. Revenue by: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 01-06-2023 Date of pronouncement : 16-06-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, arises from order of the Pr. CIT, Jamnagar dated 10-…

Ga Infra Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, has held that, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. Further, in the case of 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.’ In Gabriel India Ltd. (supra), it was expressly observed: - "The Commissioner cannot initiate proceedings with a view to starting fishing and roving…

Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Bhoomija Verma, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 The Totgars’ Co-operative Sale Vs. The Principal Commissioner Society Ltd., of Income Tax, APMC Yard, Sirsi – 581 402. Hubli. Uttara Kannada District. PAN: AACAT 0251D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Bhoomija Verma, Advocates. Respondent by : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 01.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member T…

Jagdeep Bhargava, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1279/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 50C

…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.” 29. 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 the Revenue was that while passi…

M/S Aadhar Associates, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 300/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Aadhar Associates Pr. CIT-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAVFA 7526 Q Assessee by Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.09.2019 of P…

Sanjay Gupta, Panipat vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 587/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…t 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.” 29. 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 the Revenue was that while passi…

M\S. Lexico Ceramics, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…x by invoking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There were number of judgments by various Hon’ble High Courts in this regard. 12. 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. M/s. Lexico Ceramics Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 5 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 Hi…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…irector himself to record the finding that the assessment order was erroneous. He should not have set aside the order and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the said inquiry.” 9.2 Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: Delhi High Court i) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. ii) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers Income Tax Appellate Tribunal i) ITA No. 7265/D/2017 dated 27.1.2020 M/s Klaxon Trading (P)Ltd. vs. PCIT ii) ITA No. 1781/D/2016 dated 24.4.2019 Sanjeev Singh vs. PCIT 10 THAT FOR HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY PREJUDICI…