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 Anand Engineers & Contractors, Sangurur vs. Pr.CIT, Patiala

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

ITA 477/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 Adarsh Constructions and Engineers, Sangrur vs. Pr.CIT, Patiala

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

ITA 476/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 Ganga Constructions, Sangurur vs. PCIT, Patiala

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

ITA 475/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 Hind Construction Engineers Contrctors, Sangrur vs. Pr.CIT, Patiala

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

ITA 474/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 Ambey Engineers and Contractors, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Patiala

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

ITA 473/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…

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the PCIT is not justified in setting aside the order or the AO for examining afresh. Accordingly the directions of the PCIT are quashed.” 7.13 Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167), wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- “Held, dismissing the appeal, (i) that the Assessing Officer allowed the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. Such decision of the Assessing Officer could not be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.…

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ ACIT-24(1) Hingad 601, 6th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACPH2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date o…

Jabbar Khan, Dewas vs. CIT, Ujjain

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 136/IND/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2009-10 Jabbar Khan, Pr. Cit, Village-Siya, Tehsil-Dewas बनाम/ Ujjain Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Cndpk 0362 H Assessee By Shri Ashok Mahajan, Ar Revenue By None Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022

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…

Sachchade Food Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 89/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 89/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 Sachchade Food Private Limited, P.C.I.T., 407/3, New Ahmedabad Industrial Vs. Ahmedabad-3, Estate, Ahmedabad. Village: Moraiya Tal. Sanand, Ahmedabad-382213. Pan: Aatcs9292G

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…me Tax 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 High Courts in this regard. 11.2 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 on the ground of inadequate inquiry. “12. ….. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assess…

M/S. Emboza Granito Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 240/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 240/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2016-2017

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

…ome Tax 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 High Courts in this regard. 9.2 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 on the ground of inadequate inquiry. A.Y. 2016-17 6 “12. ….. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Offi…

M/S Om Contractor and Engineers, Sangrur vs. PCIT, Patiala

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

…s his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 30 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 Omkar Engineer and Contractor, Sangrur vs. Pcti, Patiala

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

…s his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 30 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 Maa Bhagwati Enterprises, Sangrur vs. PCIT, Patiala

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 483/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

…s his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 30 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 Shiv Shakti Construction, Sangrur vs. PCIT, Patiala

The appeals of the assessees stand allowed

ITA 481/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 44A

…s his satisfaction which is required under the law. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of ITA No. 481-485-Chd-2022 (A.Y. 2012-13) Shiv Shakti Construction & Ors, Sangrur - 30 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. Karnataka State Beverages Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore - 4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 397/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Respondent: Shri Narendra Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…not be said that the issue was examined by the AO and a conscious decision was taken by him to allow the said interest payment. Therefore, reliance placed by the assessee on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs M/s Sun Beam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167) and other similar decisions is misplaced. So far as the merits of allowability of deduction of interest on late payment of the 'Fax Collected at Source is concerned, I'm not in agreement with the submission of the appellant that interest on late payment of TCS is an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Interes…

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.400/Bang/2022 Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli +IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF) Flat No.401, B Block Ramdatt Apts Keshwapur Vs. Principal CIT Hubli 580 023 Hubli PAN NO : AAHHN3255R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P. Girija, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by asse…

Shri Kuldipsinh Bhikhubha Basiya, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 153/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 153/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 Shri Kuldipsinh Bhikhubha Basiya, The Principal Commissioner Office No. 330, Vs. Of Income Tax, Star Plaza, Rajkot-1, Nr. Circuit House, Rajkot. Phulchhab Chowk, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 69C

…y 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. 10.2 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…

Leela Gupta, Jalandhar vs. Principal Comissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

ITA 75/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

…A. No.75/Asr/2022 9 unless it is not in accordance with law. An order can be termed as "erroneous" only if it is not in accordance with the law. 7.2. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also followed the above said view in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also extracted following observations made by the Tribunal: — "38. Still further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. (2000) 243 ITR 83 has held that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view, then the order cannot be…

The Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Rajkot, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 65/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 65/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of Sanghavi & Co. Vs. Income Tax, Chartered Accountants, Range-1, “Prasham”, 4Th Floor, Rajkot. Near Bilkha Plaza, Kasturba Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaaar2912F

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…sionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of A.Y. 2017-18 4 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…

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Patia vs. CIT (Exemp.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 10Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…e to 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". The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167) while considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, held as under:- P a g e 6 | 17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 "Therefore, 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 submissi…