How many judgments cite CIT v. Vikas Polymers?

318 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vikas Polymers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers

341 ITR 537High Court2012#244 most cited

What is CIT v. Vikas Polymers authority for?

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

318

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vikas Polymers · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · AO not recording enquiry · opportunity of being heard · revisionary powers · assessment order erroneous · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 57244 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 133(6)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial revision u/s 263 section 263(1)revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikas Polymers

Kamal Vyas, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 17, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 303/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Vs. PCIT-17 Kamal Vyas F-2007/2008 Room No. 120 1st Floor, Oberoi Splendor Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 JVLR Road, Andheri-E to C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400 060. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East PAN : AABPV6454A Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by Shri Vinay Sinha Date of Hearing 16.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : The assessee has filed this appeal against t…

Smt. Mamta Sharma, Bargarh vs. Principal CIT (Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRICHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh PAN/GIR No.agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 263 of the Act of the Pr. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam dated 11.3.2019 for the…

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 55/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ncome Tax. V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 11. CIT vs. Ms. Bina Indrakumar (2015) 61 taxmann.com 11 (2015) 370 ITR 552 12. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (HC Bombay) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vikas Polymers (2003) 341 ITR 537 (HC Delhi) 7.1 During the course of appellate proceedings before us on the issue of depreciation on assets it was submitted that this issue was also duly considered during the course of original assessment proceedings in the reply of the assessee dated 24th Sep, 2018. The reconciliation chart with respect to assets pre-amalgamation i.e. Troika Ph…

Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 12/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: "63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: "We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the 10 record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…is not the case of the Commissioner that the view taken by Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, Commissioner cannot invoke his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (emphasis added by us) 23. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537 Delhi) held that it is a pre-requisite that the Commissioner must give reasons to justify the exercise of suo-motu revisional powers by him to reopen a concluded assessment. A bare reiteration by him that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue will not suffice. The exercise of…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

Rajhans Metals, Na

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

ITA 933/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(C)

…t order, this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the assessing officer called for interference and revision”. On the similar facts, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC). The assessing officer has made the proper inquiry which was adequate. If there was any inquiry even inadequate that Assessment Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal by itself would give no occasion to the CIT to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. 16. We note that Hon`ble Rajasthan High Cour…

Majestic Stock Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…e ld PCIT before conclusion that the order is erroneous, he must himself make an inquiries with available material/evidence with him. In support, we draw your attention decisions of various High Court as under: a) In the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi)(HC), the Court held that if the AO has made inquiries and replied to by the assessee, then exercise of revisional powers are not warranted. Also, want of evidence cannot be a ground to disturb the findings of the AO or to state that the AO has shirked his responsibility. That the Commissioner should have provided reasons in support of rev…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…m a r S h a r m a [335 ITR 0083] (Delhi HC),  ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](Dei. HC),  CIT vs. Sr. Suresh G. Shah [ 289ITR 110 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Parmanand M. Patel [ 278 ITR 3 ]( Guj. HC ),  CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation [ IT Ref. No. 15 of 2003…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 158/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Bhopal PAN:AACCM0327M : Appellant V/s Pr. CIT -1, Bhopal : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Girish Agrawal, Ajay K. Chhajed & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Shri Rajeeb Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 08.10.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the As…

Reliance Life Sciences P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 533/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282, Ttc Area Of Midc Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Thane Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-7594-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “के” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री पवन कुमार गडाले, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. CIT - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282,…

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 409/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr.C.I.T.-I, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. Pan:Aaaab4224A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…I.T.A. No.409/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW [Through Virtual Court] BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr.C.I.T.-I, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:AAAAB4224A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Shri Sheela Chopra, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 01/09/2021 Date of pronouncement 28/09/2021 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT pass…

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

…263 of the Act and reiterated explanation of Section 263. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- 1. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO[2016] 70 Taxmann 227 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2. CIT v. Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320ITR 674 (Delhi) (HC) 3. CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2010] 194 Taxmann 57 (Delhi) (HC) 4. Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.) 5. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P&H) (HC) 7. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (HC) 8. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 (Delhi) (HC) 9. Surinder Kumar Jain…

M/S Dsiidc Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (PCIT)-3, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…1 M/s Reliance Industries Limited Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “डी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 578/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. Pr. CIT- Mumbai-3 3rd Floor, Maker Chamber-IV बिाम/ R. No. 612, 6th floor 222, Nariman Point, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 0…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year 2013-14 M/s. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known as R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant PAN :AAFCR1916A V/s Pr. CITO-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant by S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal f…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 703/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Ravinder Bawa Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Ramco Auto Ward-2(3), Industries, Preet Nagar, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: AAMPB 2811N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surinder Mahajan, Sh. Kuldeep Bhagat, C.A. & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, Adv. Respondent by Sh Anupam Kant Garg CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 09.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 14.07.2021 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is direct…

Bharti Airtel Ltd (Formerly Bharti Broadband Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3899/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 16Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…ible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. We further find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 17. Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “63. We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry a…