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.

Spml Infra Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Virtual Court] (Before Sri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 510/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SPML Infra Limited.................................................................Appellant [PAN: AADCS 2469 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata.........................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. and Ms. Mita Rizvi, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 15th, 2022 Date…

Tpr Autoparts Mfg India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 25(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7100/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Delhi21 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s TPR Autoparts Mfg Dy. Commissioner of India Private Limited, Income Tax, E-10, 1st & 2nd Floor, Circle-25(1), Main Market, Vs. New Delhi-110 002 Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110 016 PAN-AACCT 9433D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. C.S. Agarwal, Sr. Counsel and Sh. R.P. Mall, Adv. Respondent by Sh. H.K.Chaudhary, CIT-DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap…

Pravinbhai Kanubhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 692/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 692/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 Pravinbhai Kanubhai Desai, Principal Commissioner Of 64, Prernapark Society, Vs. Income Tax-6, Nr. Gor Nakuva, Ahmedabad. Maninagar, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, C.I.T D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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. 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…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

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

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

M/S. Long Life Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…t could be invoked by the ld. PCIT only in the event of „lack of enquiry‟ by the ld AO and not on account of „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 (Del). 13. We further find that the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Development Credit Bank Ltd reported in 323 ITR 206 (Bom) which would also squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- 7.…

Ganga Acrowools Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr, CIT-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 196/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.196/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…hat the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the issue as raised by the Ld. PCIT. 6.6 At this juncture, it would be relevant to make a reference to 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.) 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 there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.CIT-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. PAN: ADSPB2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 2021 of the PCIT, Delhi-12, passed u/s 263 of the…

Sh. Daljit Singh Bassi, Ranjit Nagar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 56/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 56/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54F

…proceedings for assessment year 2015-16 (i.e. captioned assessment year is concerned). 6.3 At this juncture, it would be relevant to make a reference to 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.) 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 there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the…

Tarun Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 144/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…anced by the Ld. CIT DR that there was a non-application of mind on the part of the AO. 9.1 At this juncture, it would be relevant to make a reference to 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.) 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 there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in…

M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.., Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 143/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.143/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit, बनाम 18-A, 2Nd Floor, (Central) North Avenue Road, Ludhiana West Punjab Bagh, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…anced by the Ld. CIT DR that there was a non-application of mind on the part of the AO. 5.1 At this juncture, it would be relevant to make a reference to 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.) 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 there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in…

Rajni Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 142/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…anced by the Ld. CIT DR that there was a non-application of mind on the part of the AO. 9.1 At this juncture, it would be relevant to make a reference to 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.) 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 there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in…

Shri Sanjay Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 140/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…anced by the Ld. CIT DR that there was a non-application of mind on the part of the AO. 9.1 At this juncture, it would be relevant to make a reference to 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.) 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 there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in…

Mr.Ashok Thankappan Nair, Trivandrum vs. The Pr CIT( Central), Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 630/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…on under Section 263 of the Act only when there is lack of enquiry by the learned AO. Reliance in this regard has been rightly pled by the learned A.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). ITA Nos. 627 to 630/Coch/2019 5 Smt. T. Lekha & Shri Ashok T. Nair 9. We further find in para 8 of the order that the learned Pr. CIT had merely directed the learned AO to examine the issue flagged by him in the order without pointing out where the order of the learned AO is erroneous. This only tantamount to directing the AO of fishing a…

Mr.Ashok Thankappan Nair, Trivandrum vs. The Pr CIT( Central), Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 629/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…on under Section 263 of the Act only when there is lack of enquiry by the learned AO. Reliance in this regard has been rightly pled by the learned A.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). ITA Nos. 627 to 630/Coch/2019 5 Smt. T. Lekha & Shri Ashok T. Nair 9. We further find in para 8 of the order that the learned Pr. CIT had merely directed the learned AO to examine the issue flagged by him in the order without pointing out where the order of the learned AO is erroneous. This only tantamount to directing the AO of fishing a…

Smt.T. Lekha, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The Pr CIT(Central), Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 628/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…on under Section 263 of the Act only when there is lack of enquiry by the learned AO. Reliance in this regard has been rightly pled by the learned A.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). ITA Nos. 627 to 630/Coch/2019 5 Smt. T. Lekha & Shri Ashok T. Nair 9. We further find in para 8 of the order that the learned Pr. CIT had merely directed the learned AO to examine the issue flagged by him in the order without pointing out where the order of the learned AO is erroneous. This only tantamount to directing the AO of fishing a…

Smt.T. Lekha, Thiruvananthapuram vs. The Pr CIT(Central), Cochin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 627/COCH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…on under Section 263 of the Act only when there is lack of enquiry by the learned AO. Reliance in this regard has been rightly pled by the learned A.R. on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). ITA Nos. 627 to 630/Coch/2019 5 Smt. T. Lekha & Shri Ashok T. Nair 9. We further find in para 8 of the order that the learned Pr. CIT had merely directed the learned AO to examine the issue flagged by him in the order without pointing out where the order of the learned AO is erroneous. This only tantamount to directing the AO of fishing a…

M/S Namdhari Rice and General Mills, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 145/CHANDI/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 145/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S Namdhari Rice & General Mills, Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम 1, Sri Jiwan Nagar, Tax, Sirsa -125055 Rohtak Haryana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabfn1595J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Advocate, and Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…to the interest of Revenue. The Ld. AR relied on the numerous judicial precedents in support of his various contentions. Specific reliance was placed on the judgement to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in [2010] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), wherein, it has been held that if there was an 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. 4.8 The Ld. AR further submitted that although there has been an amendment in the provisions of se…

Cochin International Airport Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 390/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cochin14 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am M/S.Cochin International Deputy Commissioner Of Airport Limited, Vs Income Tax, 35, 4Th Floor, Corporate Circle-1(2), Gcda Commercial Complex, Kochi Marine Drive, Ernakulam Pan : Aaacc9658B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri Vivek Respondent By : Sri Shantham Bose, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2022

For Appellant: Sri VivekFor Respondent: Sri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…tion 263 of the Act could be invoked only in the event of lack of enquiry by the Ld.AO and not on account of inadequate enquiry. Reliance in this regard is placed on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). Hence, we have no hesitation in quashing Section 263 order passed on account of the first issue in respect of claim of bad debts of Rs.10 Crores. 5.1. With regard to the Second issue i.e., applicability of Section 43B for PF contractors payable amounting to Rs.92,97,024/-, we find that the said sum, represents amount payable to the contra…

Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Ambala vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 277/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 277/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates Income Tax, Sco 823-824, Panchkula Sector 22A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Brepk2050A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…cash deposits in the bank were linked to the cash withdrawals. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing officer. 8.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.) in paragraph 17 has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’ and further if there was any ITA No. 277-Chd-2021 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Amabala 9 inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because…

Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Nabha vs. ITO, Nabha

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 277/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates Income Tax, Sco 823-824, Panchkula Sector 22A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Brepk2050A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…cash deposits in the bank were linked to the cash withdrawals. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing officer. 8.1 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.) in paragraph 17 has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’ and further if there was any ITA No. 277-Chd-2021 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Amabala 9 inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because…