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 367,368 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.

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3132/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…the same cannot be branded as erroneous by CIT simply because according to him the order should have been written more elaborately in view of the following case laws:- a. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra…

Paresh Vakharia, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 16, Mumbai

ITA 3262/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Vakharia-ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar-CIT-DR

Section 143Section 24Section 254(1)Section 263

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3262/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Mr. Paresh…

M/S Himadri Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Central - III, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 889/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 263

…had conducted extensive enquiry and had concluded the matter to its logical end by invoking the provisions of section 14A(2) of the Act. We place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) wherein it was held as under: The submission of the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer did not consider the aspect specifically whether the expenditure in question was revenue or capital expenditure. That argument predicated on the assessment order, which apparently did not give any reason while all…

M/S. Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 168, Delhi Rod, Sector 27-28, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aaics9088H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR

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

…e wrong to infer that there has been no application of mind by the A.O while considering the claim of the assessee although he might not have expressed it in terms of a lengthy discussion on the issue. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del) has opined in Para 17 of its order as under:- 10 I.T.A. 2560/D/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 “17. 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-tax under section 263…

Marsons Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1140/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

…) of the Act. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has not brought any material on record to prove case of the assessee in this regard. The ld. Counsel however placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court took a view that inadequate inquiry made by the AO before concluding the assessment cannot be the basis to revise his order u/s 263 of the Act that such revision u/s 263 can be made only in a case when there is complete lack of inquiry. As we have already pointed out that the assessee has not brought a…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…Construction Company vs ITO (ITA No.1250/Pn/2009), CIT vs Vandana Properties (2012) 353 ITR 36 (Bom.) and various decisions were considered and finally decided in favour of the assessee. 19 3.6. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 order dated 11/09/2009, after considering various decisions, made an elaborate discussion and decided in favour of the assessee by holding that there is distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and hold that if there is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order us/ 263,…

Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Cit, Plot No. D, District Centre, Central-Ii, Paschim Vihar, E-2, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadct5825H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, Ca Department By: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned Validity Of Revisional Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263

…the assessee. No such addition has been made. A copy of the said assessment order dated 28.3.2013 has been made available at page Nos. 51 and 52 of the paper book. The Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167(SC); ii) ITO vs. Dg. Housing Project Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 44 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Adv. CO. Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 180 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Del.); vii) CIT vs. Vodafon…

Goldman Sachs India Finance P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 2227/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri J.D.MistryFor Respondent: Shri Subachan Ram

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…lso placed on the following judicial pronouncements in support of the proposition that the CIT cannot substitute his views on a particular issue in relation to which a view has already been taken by the Assessing Officer:- (i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii)CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (2009) 309 ITR 67 (Guj) 4.1.4 The Ld. Sr. Counsel, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. in ITA No.1816 of 2013 dated 28/03/2016, argued that, as discussed earlier, since all the relevant details /expenditure on the reim…

Mr Subhas Kumar Dhanuka, Kolkata vs. C.I.T W.B - Xix, Kolkata

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

ITA 1123/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri N.V.Vasudevan, J.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra Biswas, CIT,DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…a ground for revising the assessment by exercising powers conferred upon him under section 263. He relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT-vs- Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del.) and in the case of CIT-vs- Sunbeam Auto ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) as well as the decision of the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Fairland Development (P) Ltd. –vs- CIT in ITA no.786/Kol/2012 dated 20.01.2016 to contend that the Assessment Year 2008-09 assessment cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the basis of inadequate enquiry. 6. The…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 263Section 80I

…Tribunal was right and the order of revision was not valid.” 2.13. The aforesaid order clearly fits into the facts before us . While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Hon'ble High Court duly considered the decision in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) (para-6 & 7). We are expected to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer had investigated the issue and applied his mind towards the whole record made available by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Uncontrovertedly, necessary details were produced by the assessee and examined by the ITA No.1312 & 1313/Mum/2012 17 Krunal Prav…

Hiraco Jewellery (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) 15, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7297/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

…l with in a short while, for that approach. There is no dearth of examples on this aspect of the matter. Take for example, the amendment to Section 263 by the Finance Act, 1961. In many judicial precedents, [such as in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) wherein it was held that “Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in I.T.A. No.7297/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 14 of 19 mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass o…

DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai vs. Siro Clinpharm P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2876/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

…I.T.A. Nos. 2618 and 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 56 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No. 2618/Mum/2014 Assessment years: 2009-10 Siro Clinpharm Private Limited ……….………………….Appellant 63, Lady Ratan Tata Medical and Research Centre M K Road, Cooperage, Mumbai 400 021 [PAN: AAECS8588A] Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax ……..…………….…Respondent Range 3 (3)(1), Mumbai I.T.A. Nos. 2876/Mum/2014 Assessment years: 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Range 3 (3)(1), Mumbai ……….………………….Appellant Vs. Siro Clinpharm Private Li…

Rusabh Diamonds, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 2840/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)

…I.T.A. Nos.2840 & 2497/Mum/2014 C.O. No.110/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 30 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI K BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM and Pawan Singh JM] I.T.A. No.2840/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Rusabh Diamonds ……….………………….Appellant Bharat Diamond Bourse, Tower C Office No. CE 2010, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051[PAN: AAIFR7677Q] Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ……..…………….…Respondent Circle 15(1), Mumbai. I.T.A. No.2497/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ……….………………….Appellant Circle 15(1), Mumbai. V…

Siro Clinpharm P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2618/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ISection 92CSection 92C(2)Section 92C(3)

Gitanjali Exports Corpon. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 5(1), Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 27Section 36(1)(iii)Section 51

…l with in a short while, for that approach. There is no dearth of examples on this aspect of the matter. Take for example, the amendment to Section 263 by the Finance Act, 1961. In many judicial precedents, [such as in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) wherein it was held that “Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders under s. 263 of the Act, merely because he has different…

Firestone Diamond P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 8(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92C

…of I.T.A. No.139/Mum/2014 Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 12 of 18 examples on this aspect of the matter. Take for example, the amendment to Section 263 by the Finance Act, 1961. In many judicial precedents, [such as in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) wherein it was held that “Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders under s. 263 of the Act, merely because he has different…

ACIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Gitanjali Exports Corporation Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, while appeal of the Assessing Officer is dismissed, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7662/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 27Section 36(1)(iii)Section 51

…l with in a short while, for that approach. There is no dearth of examples on this aspect of the matter. Take for example, the amendment to Section 263 by the Finance Act, 1961. In many judicial precedents, [such as in the case of CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) wherein it was held that “Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders under s. 263 of the Act, merely because he has different…

Sh. Harpreet Singh Puniani, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4228/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2010-11 Harpreet Singh Puniani, Vs. Principal Cit, Prop. M/S. Broadband Technologies, Xvi, 84-B, Old Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi. Delhi. (Pan: Aaipp2364E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal, Adv. Department By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned The Revisional Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds Involving The Sole Issue Regarding The Validity Of The Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Also Moved Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Late By 15 Days. It Has Been Explained That The Assessee Had Engaged Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Learned Ca To Represent Its Case Before The Learned Cit Against The Show-Cause Notice Issued Under Sec. 263

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT( DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 263

…; ii) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. - 57 ITR 521; iii) CIT vs. Excel Ind. Ltd. (SC) - 358 ITR 295; 7 iv ) CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd. - 317 ITR 249 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) - 320 ITR 674 (Del.); & vi) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Del.) 8. Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify the revisional order in question. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry on the issues raised in the revisional order, hence, the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and thus the Learned CIT was justified in invo…

M/S. Thiess India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2290/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…Handloom Factory Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as discussed above, therefore relying on the same, we reverse the order of Ld. CIT for u/s 263 of the Act. We are also putting our reliance in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 and CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del) held that the fact as to whether the AO has applied his mind or not need not necessarily be determined from what has been stated in the assessment order alone, it has to be examined as to whether any inquiry was at all conducted by the AO. There exists a difference between lack of inquiry and inadequa…

Rukmini (Koel) Mallick, Kolkata vs. CIT, -Xx, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1227/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Rukmini (Koel) Mallick V/S. Commissioner Of 14/106A, Golf Club Road, Income Tax-Xx Kolkata, Kolkata – 700 033 54/1, Rafi Ahmed [Pan No.Ajkpm 5044 L] Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We find that the ld. CIT treated the order erroneous on premise regarding the issue of survey. 5. We are also relying in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) and CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del) held that the fact as to whether the AO has applied his mind or not need not necessarily be determined from what has been stated in the assessment order alone, it has to be examined as to whether any inquiry was at all conducted by the AO. There exists a difference between lack of inquiry and in…