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 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.

Mohmedamin Mohmedumar General, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.522/SRT/2024 AYs: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Mohmedamin Mohmedumar Vs. PCIT (Central), General, Surat Plot No.76, Baunat Bungalows, Gorat Road, Rander, Surat – 395005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABGPG4684H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 28/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee, emanate…

ACIT, Circle, Gandhidham vs. Kutch District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Anjar

In the result, appeal find by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 212/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.212/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Acit, Circle, Kutch District Co-Operative बनाम Gandhidham Milk Producers Union Ltd. Vs. C.O. Apmc Premises, Versamedi Naka, Near Railway Crossing Anjar, Gujarat-37010 Pan : Aaaak9845N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Akshay Modi, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Modi, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…ary powers under Section 263 of the Act cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There were a number of judgements by various High Courts in this regards. 8. Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto [2010] 189 Taxman 436/[2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), made a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The Hon'ble court held that where the AO has prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot be set aside u/s263 on the ground of inadequate inquiry "12 There are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not r…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3719/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI BEENNA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3717/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3716/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI BEENAPPILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3715/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI BEENAPPILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3714/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI BEENNA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Raj Impex, Thane vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1, Mumbai

Accordingly, are rendered as dismissed

ITA 3713/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI BEENNA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & & & & & & Raj Impex Vs. PCIT Central Mumbai 1 101A Devidarshan Complex Room No. 1001, 10th Floor, Tembi Naka Thane West, Pratishtha Bhavan Old CGO Annex Thane-400601. Maharashi Karve Road, PAN: AALFR6800J Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Satish R Mody Revenue by Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement 27/10/2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER BENCH: The captioned appeals are filed by t…

Jai Mata Di Om, Thane vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax, Thane-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3342/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…cannot impose his own understanding of the extent of inquiry. There are plethora of judgments by various High Page | 9 ITA No. 3342/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 Jai Mata Di OM Courts in this regard. The hon'ble 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. It was observed that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry"…

Surbhit Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

…the absence of making a further enquiry. Even if this view, in the opinion of the ld.PCIT is not correct, it would not permit him to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. 5.6 Further, the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del)held that if the AO while making assessment has made an inadequate enquiry, that would not, by itself, give rise to the PCIT to pass order u/s 263, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. The relevant observations of the hon'ble Court are as under:- "The submission of the revenue was that while passing the assessment order, th…

Sh. Sukhvinder Singh, Kanpur vs. Pr CIT, Central, Kanpur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…ld that the assumption of revisional jurisdiction can be justified only on the basis of materials indicating that the order of the assessment was payable of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (011) 332 ITR 167 (Del): it was held by Hon'ble High Court that there are judgments galore laying down the principle that the Assessing Officer in the assessment order is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each and every item of deduction, etc. It was further held that one has to keep in mind the distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequat…

Slr Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 544/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद 'ए' बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्यायिक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.544/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) | SLR Infrastructure Private Limited, Hyderabad. | Vs. | The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(1), Hyderabad. | PAN : AAJCS5863K | | (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) | करदाता का प्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented by | राजस्व…

Sanjay Chawla, Chaibasa vs. Pr. CIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/RAN/2025[20-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 63

…er by him, a conclusion cannot be 4 Sanjay Chawla Vs PCIT drawn by the Commissioner that no proper enquiry with respect to the issue was made by the assessing officer, and enable him to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) – Whether if while making assessment, Assessing Officer has made an inadequate enquiry, that would not, by itself, give occasion to Commissioner to pass order under section 263, merely because he has different opinion in matter, it is only in caves of lack of inquiry' that such a course of action would be open Held, yes-Assessee- company…

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 383/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180): "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration." 19. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of e…

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 380/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180): "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration." 19. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of e…

Takdir Traders, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 378/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT DR
Section 147Section 263

…s of facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not warrant interference of this court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of "lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed inadequate, following the decision in Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (page 180): "that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter." No substantial question of law arises for our consideration." 19. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it can be safely concluded that inadequacy of e…

Saurashtra Gramin Bank Manager (F & A), Rajkot vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Rajkot

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

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 37/RJT/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1st Floor Wing 2, LIC Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAHAS2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Ms. A.D. Vyas, AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of…

M/S. Parishram Builders, Veraval vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…‘Lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is for the assessing officer to decide the extent of enquiry to be made, as it is his satisfaction, as what is required under law. For this, reliance is placed on the decision of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2010) 332 ITR 167], wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act, merely because the M/s. Parisharam Builders ITA No.98 /RJT/2021 (AY : 2015-16) 8 Commissioner has a different opinion in the matter and that only in cases where t…

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 845/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…the assessee. It is not a case of 'lack of enquiry'. Merely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,9…

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 4229/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…the assessee. It is not a case of 'lack of enquiry'. Merely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,9…