“lack of enquiry”

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

case, a plausible view in law, which cannot be regarded as erroneous, much less prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.\nRe (c): Lack of enquiry vs. Inadequate Enquiry\n152 It is well settled law that if the concerned officers, acting in accordance with law makes an assessment, the same ... basis that more enquiries ought to have been conducted to find something.\n153 There is, it is respectfully submitted, a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. While in the former case, the assessment order may be regarded as “erroneous”, but that would not be so in the latter

MICROTEK INFRASTRUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

also place on the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon. High Court where it has been that for the lack of enquiry by the assessing officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax is justified in Page 5 of 15 assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income ... justified in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act and cancelling the assessment order where he/she finds the lack of enquiry by an assessing officer. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del), holds

PRIMEGOLD STEEL AND POWER LIMITED, CLUB ROAD PUNJABI BAGH EXTENSION,DELHI vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI, DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16]

legality of proceedings under section 147 on various grounds inter alia including no failure on part of the assessee to disclose material facts, lack of enquiry in allegations before recording reasons, case of borrowed satisfactions, etc. A perusal of para-7 of the appellate order alludes that there has been

DHARMBATI,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX INSPECTOR FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

which he ought to have carried out in respect of the enhanced compensation received by the assessee. It is not a case of 'lack of enquiry'. Merely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order ... evidence available on records, it cannot be alleged as done by the Ld. PCIT that it is a case of 'no enquiry' or 'lack of enquiry'. No doubt that the Ld. AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous as held