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

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

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

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

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

332 ITR 167High Court2011#54 most cited

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

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

897

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

Also referred to as

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

Also reported as

189 Taxmann 436227 CTR 13331 DTR 189 Taxmann.com 191

Sections most often in play

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

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.

Ajay Garg, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Bulandshahr

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

ITA 691/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ajay Garg Vs. Pr. Cit Prop. Abhay Trading Ghaziabad Company, Anupshahr Nayi Mandi, Bullandshahr- 203001 Pan No.Abfpg1600G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 263Section 263(1)

…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.” 14. 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…

Smt. Paramjit Kaur, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 337/Chd/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Paramjit Kaur, बनाम The Pcit- 2, H.No.7227/3, St. No. 18, Daba Ludhiana Road, New Janta Nagar, Ludhiana 141003 "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Agwpk2730M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…to the order of the co- ordinate Bench in the case of Sanjay Jain & Others reported in 96 ITR (Trib) 1 (Chd), wherein, the co-ordinate Bench relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and also the judgment in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects 11 337-Chd-2020 (A.Y. 2011-12) – Smt. Paramjit Kaur, Ludhiana Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi), wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry and further if any inquiry was found to…

Rekha Shekhawat, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271A

…s made as per CIT. However, 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 kee…

M/S. Infinity Transport Soluation P. Ltd. Rajkot, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 137/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 137/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S. Infinity Transoft Solution The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax-1, Infinity House P-9, Rajkot. Vishwakarma Society, Near Vavdi Water Tank, 150 Feet Ring Road, Rajkot-360004. Pan: Aadc15680G

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R

Section 142(1)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…

Rishi Kiran Logistics Private Limited, Kachchh vs. The PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 136/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 136/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2017-2018 M/S. Rishi Kiran Logistics Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of Plot No.8, Vs. Income Tax, Opp. Post Office, Rajkot-1, Gandhidham, Rajkot. Kutch-370201. Pan: Aadcr4880P

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…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. 8.2 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…

Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers P Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…yet record showed that Assessing Officer had applied his mind, once such application of mind, was discernible from record, proceeding under section 263 would not fall into area of Commissioner having a different opinion. (x) CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto Ltd. (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Del) There is a distinction between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry"—If there is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under s. 263, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter—Such a course of action is open only in cases of "lack of enquiry"—Contention of the Revenue th…

M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 191/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 191/Rjt/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2015-2016 M/S. Perth Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Commissioner Of At. Unchi Mandal, Vs. Income Tax-3, Opp. 66 Kva Sub Station, Rajkot. Morbi-363641. Pan: Aahcp6296P

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT.D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…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. 10. 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. 2015-16 7 “12. ….. There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Offic…

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…n erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law ………" 23. The ld. AR also relied on the following decisions:- Page 15 of 23 • CIT Vs. M/s. Sun Beam Auto Limited, reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) • CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) • CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) • Sri Ashish Prasanna Kumar Jain, ITA No.466/Bang/2020 dated 19.9.2022. 24. The ld. AR has placed reliance on the judgments of the various High Courts on the issue. 25. On the other hand, the ld DR submitted that the statement recorded u/s.132(4) is a…

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

…ttal, the ld. AR submitted that the receipts are from the members of the assessee and hence there cannot be any unaccounted entries. He also relied on the following decisions:- • CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) • CIT v. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. (2020) • 121 taxmann.com 172 (Karn.) • CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) • Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO, ITA No. 541/Bang/2021 for AY 2017-18 decided on 13.12.2021. (Bangalore-Trib.) • ITO v. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana, ITA No. 76/Viz/2021 or AY 2017-18 decided on 16.03.2022.…

Arjunsa Megharajasa Kathwate, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

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

…n cannot be made on the sole reason that certain point has not been discussed at length or it does not find specific mention. Reliance was placed on the decisions of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000[ 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del). 17. The ld. AR drew our attention to the evidence submitted before the AO (placed on record in the PB) to substantiate that the impugned credits are made into the bank account of the firm and the PAN was wrongly linked to the assessee’s account. 18. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the PCIT and submitted that there is nothing…

M/S Rithwik Rk Joint Venture vs. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

…assessment could not have been reopened in exercising revision power under section 263 of the Act for making further enquiry. He has then referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sun Beam Auto Limited 332 ITR 167 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has analyzed the scope of the exercising of the power of the CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and held that if there was any enquiry even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion in the matter…

M/S. Rithwik Rk Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip France Sas, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144C(5)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…t has been held in various decisions that where the A.O has taken a possible view, the assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We find 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…

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…as stated in the order of the AO is supported by the entries in the books of accounts submitted before the AO which proves that there are verified by the AO. vii) Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) Page 6 of 17 CIT v. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. [2021] 276 Taxman 460 (Kar) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) PCIT, Surat v. Shreeji Paints (P) Ltd. [2021] 282 Taxman 464 (SC) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum Trib) 6. The learned…

Shri Rahul Dharmendra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 75/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 75/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Rahul Dharmendra Shah, The Principal Commissioner 14, Chandra Prakash Society, Vs. Of Income Tax-5, Vibhag-2, Kankariya, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380022. Pan: Cqjps5772C

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR

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

…voking revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There were a number of judicial precedent by various High Courts in this regard. 9.2 The 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…

Shri Dharmendra Champaklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-5, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 72/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR

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

M/S. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

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

…penses should be disallowed. After considering the submissions, the learned assessing officer has applied his mind and accepted the returned income of the assessee. The assessee relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High court in CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (enclosed at page no 91 to 100 of the paper book) wherein it is held that lack of enquiry cannot be equated with inadequate enquiry. It was also held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that could not by itself give an occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, merely because he had a difference of opinion i…

B N Prasanna Kumar, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore

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

ITA 466/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Srinivas T.Bidari, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69A

…nue. In support of the above proposition, we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Limited reported in (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) had held that lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry by the A.O. cannot be a reason to invoke the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reads as follows:- “….. therefore one has to see from the record whether there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question…

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 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:- "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 submission that one has to keep in mind the distinc…

Hike Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Prcit-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2906/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

…view cannot give jurisdiction to CIT to exercise jurisdiction u/s 263. In the present case, AO has taken a plausible view after due enquiry. Hence ld. Pr.CIT is denuded his jurisdiction u/s 263 in the facts of the present case. (ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) : “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. The Assessing Officer had called (or explanatio…