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.

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Incometax Officer is unsustainable in law". 7. 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, according to ld AR, for argument sake, even if it is held that the AO had made inadequate inquiry, then also powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked under the fact…

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

ITA 1675/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 263

…f Gabrial India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108, wherein, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held, “CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the ITO”. We are also aware of the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, wherein 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 our opinion, in the instant case, this is neither the case of inadequate enquiry nor lack of enquiry at the regular assessment stage. 14 M/…

Shyam Sunder Verma, Bhopal vs. Pr. CIT -2, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 993/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-D.R
Section 194CSection 263Section 26A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] BEFORE: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Assessment Year 2015-16 Shyam Sunder Verma, Pr. Commissioner of 102-A, Sector-A, Income Tax-2, Industrial Area, Vs Bhopal Govindpura, Bhopal (Respondent) PAN: AALPV2213P (Appellant) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 29-08-2022 Date of pronouncement : 22 -11-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16, arises from order of the…

Rk Infra & Engineering India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 188/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

…on powers under section 263 of the Act for making further enquiries". (Emphasis Supplied) 8.8 Reliance is placed on the parity of reasoning on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Sun Beam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 where it was held: "therefore one has to see from the record whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. It there was an enquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under section 263, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It…

Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh, Na

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

…ior Counsel submits that inadequacy of enquiry cannot be a ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, otherwise it will be an endless process. To support his view, the ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (ii) CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (iii) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) 11. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that even on merit, no addition is called for on account of cash deposit of Rs. 19.00 lacs. Such cash deposits were out of opening cash balance at the time of beginning of demonetization peri…

Shri Dinesh Chhaganlal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 51/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 51/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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. 10.11 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 Asstt. Year 2015-16 10 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…

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “C” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Ms. Padmavathy S., Accountant Member M/s. Embassy Property vs The Pr. CIT (Central) Developments Pvt. Ltd. C.R. Building No.150, 1st Floor, Embassy Point Queen's Road Infantry Road, Bangalore 560001 Bangalore 560001 PAN – AAACD6927A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CA Revenue by: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 14/11/2022 Date of pronouncement: 21/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This appeal is against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income T…

Rahul Mittal, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-10, New Delhi

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

ITA 708/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT- DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…isions of section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order.” 20. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 has held that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. Whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question has to be seen. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT…

Sherawali Coal Carrier (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 441/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…be distinguished from other cases (i) where there is enquiry but the findings are incorrect/erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to make proper or full verification or enquiry. 16. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. 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-…

M/S J.C.Sharma & Sons, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT -2, Bhopal

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 299/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. J.C. Sharma & Sons Pr. Cit -2 बनाम Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) /Vs. Pan: Aaefj 6447 L Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhuller, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 29.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R

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…

M/S. Yatharth Infrastructures (P) Ltd., Ujjain vs. Pr. CIT, Ujjain

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 532/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Parth Jhavar, ARs
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…

Zahurahmed Abdulpazzak Valjiwala, Himmatnagar vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 43B

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Zahurahmed Abdulrazzak Pr. CIT-1, Valjiwala, C/o Raj Deep Ahmedabad Tours & Travels, Hajipura, Vs (Respondent) Himatnagar, Himatnagar-383001, Gujarat PAN: ABRPV6517D (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 26-09-2022 Date of pronouncement : 10-11-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Pri…

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…tical. vs DCIT -(2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd); The Ld. AR submitted that "Inadequacy" of inquiry by Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: " CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Delhi); The Ld. AR further submitted that even on merits, no addition is called for in respect of either of the three issues raised by Pr. CIT in view of contentions taken by the assessee during the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. In addit…

Dinesh Kumar Singh, Mirzapur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

ITA 11/ALLD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT-DR and Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…n (2018) 168 ITD 499(Kol.-trib.) 11. Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Neerav Modi, reported in (2016) 138 DTR(Bom) 81 12. Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC) 13. ITAT, Delhi- Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd v. PCIT, reported in (2017) 54 ITR (Trib.) 358 (ITAT Delhi Bench) 14. ITAT, Pune Bench- Priya Kishore Jagtiani v. PCIT, in ITA No. 1274 to 1276 /Pun/2017 15. ITAT, Delhi Bench- Hike Private Limited v. PCIT, in ITA No. 2906/Del/2018 5b. The Ld. CIT DR on the other hand submitted bef…

Sr Trust, Madurai vs. PCIT(Central), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 213/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 12ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथा, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.213/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s.S.R.Trust, v. The Principal Commissioner- Lake Area, Melur Road, of Income Tax (Central), Madurai-625 107. Chennai-2. [PAN: AACTS 0376 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.B.Ramakrishnan, CA ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : M…

V.Rajasekhar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 263

…commenced in this case, unlike the facts in the case of M/s. Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.(supra). Page 10 of 26 The Mumbai Bench of Tribunal while noticing the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd, 332 ITR 167 and the case of Nagesh knitwear Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 135 observed that the Explanation2 to section 263 inserted by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.04.2015 would not impact the assessment earlier to 2014-15 and such a decision was followed by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of Arun Kumar Garg (HUF) vs. PCIT in ITA No. 3391/Del/2018 for the asses…

M/S Metro Development, Mumbai vs. PCIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…n jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act could be initiated by the ld. PCIT only for ‘lack of enquiry’ and not for ‘inadequate enquiry’. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167. In the instant case, the ld. PCIT is only trying to conclude that the ld. AO had made inadequate enquiries. The law is further settled by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of PCIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates reported in 106 taxmann.com 30 (Guj) wherein it was held as under:- “3. We have heard learned counsel for…

M/S Chenab Construction, Sangrur vs. PCIT, Patiala

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 480/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

…d it is for the Assessing Officer to decide the extent of inquiry to be made and it is his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in (2010) reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because the Commissioner had a different opinion in the matter. It is a settled law that the Ld. Pr.CIT cannot pass the order u/s 263 on the ground that thorough inquiry should have be…

M/S Amar Contruction and Engineer, Sangrur vs. Pcti, Patiala

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 479/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

…d it is for the Assessing Officer to decide the extent of inquiry to be made and it is his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in (2010) reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because the Commissioner had a different opinion in the matter. It is a settled law that the Ld. Pr.CIT cannot pass the order u/s 263 on the ground that thorough inquiry should have be…

M/S Himalyan Construction and Engineers, Sangrur vs. PCIT, Patiala

In the result, all the appeals of the respective assessees stands allowed

ITA 478/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

…d it is for the Assessing Officer to decide the extent of inquiry to be made and it is his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in (2010) reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would by itself not give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because the Commissioner had a different opinion in the matter. It is a settled law that the Ld. Pr.CIT cannot pass the order u/s 263 on the ground that thorough inquiry should have be…