← All Phrases

“lack of enquiry”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263780 judgments

The decision most relied on for lack of enquiry is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on lack of enquiry

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.
332 ITR 167 · 2011 · High Court
897
citing judgments

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.

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.
343 ITR 329 · 2012 · High Court
438
citing judgments

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers
341 ITR 537 · 2012 · High Court
318
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma
335 ITR 83 · 2011 · High Court
264
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 for an assessment merely because of an inadequate inquiry by the Assessing Officer, provided there was some inquiry or the record demonstrates application of mind, as this constitutes a mere difference of opinion.

Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO
70 Taxmann.com 227 · 2016 · ITAT
220
citing judgments

Before revising an assessment order under Section 263, the CIT/PCIT must conduct their own inquiries or verifications to establish that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, rather than merely directing further inquiry or pointing out the AO's lack of inquiry.

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation
357 ITR 388 · 2013 · High Court
210
citing judgments

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
341 ITR 293 · 2012 · High Court
205
citing judgments

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

Judgments citing lack of enquiry

Jay Prabhudas Vithalani, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

ITA 75/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudas Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat-361001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.74/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-22) Khushaboo Jaykumar Vithlani 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Gujarat-361008 Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, Lal Wadi Main Road, Kaushal Nagar, Gujarat - 361110 स्थायी लेखासं . / जी आइआरसं . / Pan/Gir.: Aefpv6723A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Respondent By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. Ar : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 19/06/2025 : 05/08/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) – 2021-22, Are Directed Against The Separate Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [(In Short "Ld. Pr.Cit”] U/S. 263 Of The Act, Both Orders Dated 24.01.2025. 2. Since, These Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessee For Same

Section 263

PCIT, Jamnagar has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the AO'S order suffered from lack of enquiry merely because the AO, conscious of all facts and Information, chose one of the possible views in law by opting to accept the contentions of the assessee ... this was not an error prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the order of the assessment did not suffer from any lack of enquiry and non-application law and provisions of law. 9. The Ld. PCIT, Jamnagar has erred in law as well as on facts in ordering

Khushboo Jaykumar Vithlani, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the same assessee (ITA No

ITA 74/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjunlal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 75/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2021-22) (Hybrid Hearing) Jay Prabhudasvithlani Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 201, Varajresidency, 8 – Patel Colony, Income Tax, Gujarat – 361008 Aayakar Bhavan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar Rajkot Highway Gujarat – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abcpv0266A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 263

PCIT, Jamnagar has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the AO'S order suffered from lack of enquiry merely because the AO, conscious of all facts and Information, chose one of the possible views in law by opting to accept the contentions of the assessee ... this was not an error prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the order of the assessment did not suffer from any lack of enquiry and non-application law and provisions of law. 9. The Ld. PCIT, Jamnagar has erred in law as well as on facts in ordering

Coral India Finance & Housing Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 2496/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri V K Ginde, ARFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(2)(a)

specifically enquired into the allowability of the claim of the deduction u/s 80G of the Act, therefore, there is lack of enquiry on this specific claim of the assessee. 5. Before him, the assessee claimed that CSR expenditure of Rs.10,35,000/- had been incurred as provided u/s.135

Kaushal Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1952/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Reepal G. Trashawala,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra,(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

considered opinion that in the instant case, ld PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground of 'lack of enquiry' when adequate enquiries were already made by the ld.AO in the assessment proceedings. Moreover, he took one of the plausible views in disallowing

Ravinder, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4865/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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

Bajaj Holdings Amd Investment Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3678/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Vasantiben Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

PCIT erred in not appreciating the fact that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, could be applied only when there was lack of enquiry, or no enquiry made by the AO. Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act, cannot be applied when there was adequate enquiry made

Pashupati Capital Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Mumbai - 4, Mumbai

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

ITA 2985/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 135Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

with respect to CSR expenditure as allowable deduction u/s 80G of the Act. Hence the assessment order suffers from lack of enquiry and Explanation 2 of section 263 of the Act is attracted in the case of the assessee and the jurisdiction of section 263 of the Act has been ... twin conditions required to be fulfilled are (i) the assessment order is not in accordance with law or (ii) the same suffers from lack of enquiry. Ld. PCIT has concluded in para no. 4.7 and 4.8 of its order as to how the AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

decisions of the High Courts and Tribunals, to reiterate the other decisions of the High Courts and Tribunals, to reiterate the proposition that lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the proposition that lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the proposition that lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry

The Citizen Co-Op-Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 388/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.388/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) The Citizen Cooperative Vs. Dy.Cit Society Limited, Hyderabad Circle 9 (1) Pan:Aaaat3952F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision Order Dated 13/02/2025 Of The Learned Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act For The A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) - Iv U/S 263 Of The Act Is Erroneous Both In Law & Facts Of The Case. 2. The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit) U/S 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Need To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadwaj, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted ... merits. As held above, a distinction must be drawn in the cases where the Assessing Officer does not conduct an enquiry as lack of enquiry by itself renders the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and cases where the Assessing Officer conducts enquiry but finding

Jaypee Fertilizers & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Pr.CIT, Noida

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1047/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

through the facts, it can be observed that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry and this is a clear case of lack of enquiry not a case inadequate enquiry. Further non application of mind by the Assessing Officer can be easily gauzed from the fact that the information

M/S. Super Auto Forge Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(1), Chennai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 80G

argued that explanation 2 to section 263 should not have been invoked by the PCIT in this case. 7. Besides lack of enquiry the reason for the PCIT to invoke the provisions of section 263 is that the AO has erroneously allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee under section

Nirmal Bang Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 4, Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 2454/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Nirmal Bang Securities P. Ltd. Pcit B-2, Marathon Innova, Aayakar Bhavan Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Vs. M.K. Road Opp. Peninsula Corporate Churchgate Lower Parel West Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 013. Pan : Aaacn7369I Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Anant N. Pai
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)(iiihk)

different legal views were considered— rather, the Assessing Officer passed the order without taking any view on this issue. Because of this lack of enquiry, the assessment order is both incorrect and harmful to the Revenue, as a deduction that may not be permitted under law was wrongly allowed without ... further argued that the Ld. AO passed the order without taking any view on this issue and because of this lack of enquiry, the assessment order is both incorrect and harmful to the Revenue. Now, let us see the cases-law of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

expenditure. The AO has not specifically enquired into the allowability of the claim of the deduction U/S.80G of the Act, therefore, there is lack of enquiry on this specific claim of the assessee. It is observed that the AO has passed the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B

Bhagwan Vardhman Shwetamber Murtipujak Tapagacch Jain Sangh, Mumbai vs. Commissioner Income Tax, (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2378/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 144Section 147Section 263

that when a power has have been exercised under section 144 of the Act, this cannot be held to be a case of lack of enquiry as held by the learned PCIT so as to invoke the powers conferred under section 263 of the Act as the Assessing Officer

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 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:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 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:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

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

Aditya Gupta, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central) - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1503/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 बनाम Aditya Gupta Pcit (Central)-1, 8/48, West Punjabi Bagh, Vs. Room No.338, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Amzpg2185M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 54F

otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since it is not a case of “lack of enquiry” or “lack of investigation” and therefore the invocation u/s 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. 1.3 That the observation of the learned

Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarathwada Nagari Sahakari V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Path Sanstha Maryadit, बनाम 1(1), Mohan Plaza, Wayle Shop No. 06, 1St Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Dhamnikar Plaza, Bhiwandi, – 421301, Maharashtra Thane – 421302, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9150E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

deduction claimed by the assessee in the assessment order. Thus, the ld. AO has taken a plausible view and also there is no lack of enquiry on the part of AO. We find that he has applied his mind and allowed the claim to the assessee. 7. Therefore, in view

Jeevandeep Edumedia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, the a In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands allowed

ITA 2517/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Jeevandeep Edumedia Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit-6, 1St Floor, Sun Paradise Business 501,5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Maharishi Karve Road, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aabcj 0180 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Parikh
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

exercising powers undersection 263 of the Act, without appreciating that: the Act, without appreciating that: a. It was not a case of lack of enquiry as the assessing officer during t a case of lack of enquiry as the assessing officer during t a case of lack of enquiry ... Explanation 2 to section be revised, and hence, the invocation of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act—on the ground of lack of enquiry or inadequate on the ground of lack of enquiry or inadequate on the ground of lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry—was unwarranted

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted ... merits. As held above, a distinction must be drawn in the cases where the Assessing Officer does not conduct an enquiry; as lack of enquiry by itself renders the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and cases where the Assessing Officer conducts enquiry but finding