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.

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Smt Anupama Asswa, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…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: Anupama Asawa 10 “12.…

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

…y wrong or unlawful. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). 21. Further, we note that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (227 CTR 133) drew the thin line of difference between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry" and held that in the case of inadequate inquiry there cannot be 263 order. Therefore, without prejudice, even it is held that the AO had made inadequate inquiry then also powers u/s 263 of the Act cannot be invoked under the facts and circumstances of the case. T…

Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Tilak Bhawan, Harda vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohal Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Harda Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Adypa 9036 B Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

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…

Shabana Bee, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 19/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shabana Bee, Pcit-1, 786, Vishwas Indore बनाम/ Nagarbanzari, Vs. Pithampur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Asfpb 7940 R Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)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…

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…uiry but the findings are incorrect/erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to make proper or full verification or enquiry. ITA No. 117/SRT/2022 A.Y.17-18 Raj Abhishek Corporation 15. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, and it was held as under:- "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 Commissioner of Income-ta…

Shri Khalid Aman, Bhopal vs. The PCIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 225/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…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…

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…jurisdiction u/s. 263 cannot be exercised where possible view has been taken by the Assessing Officer while applying the provisions of the Act. 20.1.19 Reference is drawn to Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.I.T. vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) held that "One has to keep in mind the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry' that such a…

M/S. Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai-1

In the result, the appeal filed

ITA 871/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Glint Infraprojects Pvt. Pr. Cit-1, Ltd, Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor, 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre, 37- Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi 40, Subhash Road, Vile Parle Karve Road, (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aadcg 5620 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue By : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/12/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Kardam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…e Ld. PCIT, further distinguish PCIT, further distinguished the decisions relied upon the decisions relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative ed Representative of the assessee in the case of of the assessee in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), observing as CIT Vs Sunbeam auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), observing as CIT Vs Sunbeam auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), observing as under: “8. The assessee's representative has relied on the ruling in the 8. The assessee's representative has relied on the ruling in the 8. The assessee's representative has relied on the ruling…

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ito,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, Ac Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. ITO,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, AC Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096 PAN : AABCM9323J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR Date of hearing: 20.12.2022 Date of pronouncement: 26.12.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This appeal filed by the as…

Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd., Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…sing officer made adequate inquiry, yet inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. To support of his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decision:  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del)  CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) 11. On merit, ld. AR for the assessee submits that cash deposits of Rs.77.00 lakhs in the form of HDFC bank during such demonetization period were detailed opening cash balance ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. L…

K. N. Diamond, Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…sing officer made adequate inquiry, yet inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. To support of his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decision:  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del)  CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) 11. On merit, ld. AR for the assessee submits that cash deposits of Rs.77.00 lakhs in the form of HDFC bank during such demonetization period were detailed opening cash balance ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. L…

Parimal Chandrakant Zaveri, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 283/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263

…ann.com 31(SC)  Shree Gayatri Associates vs. Pr. CIT (2019)106 taxmann.com 30 [High Court of Gujarat))  4 Gabriel India LTd vs. CIT (1993) 71 Taxmann 585 (Bombay) 5  Vikas Polymers vs.CIT (2010) 194 taxmann.com 57(delhi) 6  Sunbeam Auto Ltd vs. CIT (2010) 189 Taxmann 436 (Dehli) 7  Dilip Kumar Swami vs. Pr. CIT, Bikaner (2019) 106 Taxmann.com 59 (Rajasthan)  8 Colour Publications (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai (2018) 97 taxmann.com 116 (Mumbai- Tribunal)  9 M/s Anisha Jewellery vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai, ITA No. 2467/MUM/2019 6. Per contra, Ld. D.R. appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. PCIT an…

Swaran Financial Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz)& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजपाल यादव,उपा"य"(कोलकाता "े") एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" [Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ)& Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 192/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Swaran Financial Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata (PAN: AAECS 4024 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ!) Respondent / ("#यथ!) 03.11.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क& 'त(थ Date of Pronouncement / 14.12.2022 आदेश उ*घोषणा क& 'त(थ For the Appellant / Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate 'नधा/0रती क& ओर से For the Respondent / Shri Amol K…

Mojilal Rajput, Shujalpur Mandi vs. ITO, Shajapur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 21/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

…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 judg…

Mojilal Rajput, Sujalpur Mandi vs. The ITO, Shajapur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 20/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

…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 judg…

Roop Singh Tanwar, Dewas vs. The CIT, Ujjain

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 52/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Roop Singh Tanwar Pcit Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Ajtpt 7633 E Assessee By Shri A.K. Mahajan, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06.12.2022

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 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…

Bharat Malhotra (Prop M/S Shri Nathji Jewels), Karnal vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 826/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 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…

Shri Prashant Agrawal, Bhopal vs. Pr. CIT -I, Bhopal

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 561/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. DFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IT) Asst.Year.– 2014-15 - 12 - 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…