← 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

M/S Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Khargone vs. ACIT-2, Indore

In the result the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Date Of Hearing 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263

Income Tax Act. Thus Ld. AR has submitted that case of the assessee does not fall in the category of complete lack of enquiry when the Ld. A.O has passed the order after conducting a due enquiry and satisfaction of the claim of the assessee then the same cannot ... return income without making any enquiry about the allowability of provisions claimed as deduction by the assessee. This is a case of complete lack of enquiry on the part of Ld. A.O. He has relied upon the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 5. We have considered the rival submissions

Aargee Enterprises, Kaithal vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Rawla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is unsustainable as power to revise can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case of inadequate enquiry. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Order passed ... same, we are of the considered view that the order so passed by the Assessing officer cannot be held as erroneous due to lack of enquiry or for that matter, requisite enquiry on the part of the Assessing officer. Where the Assessing officer after due appreciation of facts and circumstances

Vipul Kumar Modi, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur -I

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 310/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

could not bring any material on record to controvert the verifiable factual position. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the Ld. Pr.CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

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 Commissioner of Income tax must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry

M/S.Sudchemie India P. Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 51/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh Bhatt, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

material on record. 3.1 It would be, to begin with, relevant to visit, even if in brief, the law in the matter. Lack of enquiry would by itself result in the ensuing assessment being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision, toward which ... supra), is one of the ingredients that renders an order as prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of the Revenue. Absence or lack of enquiry is an attribute, a manifestation, of this non- application, so that an order imbued therewith would be liable to revision. As explained therein with reference

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

fact arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant any interference; that that being the position, the case would not be one of lack of enquiry and, even if the enquiry was termed as inadequate, following the decision in 'M/s Sunbeam Auto Limited', that would not, by itself, give occasion ... Commissioner that the Income Tax Officers did not make sufficient enquiry was totally subjective; that it was not a case of lack of enquiry; that the Commissioner judged the sufficiency of the enquiry by subjective standards; that it appeared that according to the Commissioner, more enquiries should have been made

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

fact arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant any interference; that that being the position, the case would not be one of lack of enquiry and, even if the enquiry was termed as inadequate, following the decision in 'M/s Sunbeam Auto Limited', that would not, by itself, give occasion ... Commissioner that the Income Tax Officers did not make sufficient enquiry was totally subjective; that it was not a case of lack of enquiry; that the Commissioner judged the sufficiency of the enquiry by subjective standards; that it appeared that according to the Commissioner, more enquiries should have been made

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

fact arrived at by the Tribunal did not warrant any interference; that that being the position, the case would not be one of lack of enquiry and, even if the enquiry was termed as inadequate, following the decision in 'M/s Sunbeam Auto Limited', that would not, by itself, give occasion ... Commissioner that the Income Tax Officers did not make sufficient enquiry was totally subjective; that it was not a case of lack of enquiry; that the Commissioner judged the sufficiency of the enquiry by subjective standards; that it appeared that according to the Commissioner, more enquiries should have been made

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

held that the order of ld. AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the ground of lack of enquiry, simply because ld. Pr. CIT felt that ld. AO should have made further enquiries on the same issue, importantly based on same facts and information ... 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

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

held that the order of ld. AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue on the ground of lack of enquiry, simply because ld. Pr. CIT felt that ld. AO should have made further enquiries on the same issue, importantly based on same facts and information ... 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

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

fact or explanation needs what further enquiries. The Ld. Counsel has demonstrated that all the factual discripancies pointed by the Ld. PCIT regarding lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, were, infact, factually wrong. The Assessing Officer had not only raised the necessary queries but also asked the assessee ... examine, have been duly examined by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and the observations of the Ld. PCIT regarding any lack in enquiry on all the four points was factually wrong. Even, whatever, directions have been given by the ld. Pr. CIT to the Assessing Officer and that

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground of lack of enquiry, which, in our view, is a general observation and no specific observation has been made in respect of any of the details or evidence furnished ... 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

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

held that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground of lack of enquiry, which, in our view, is a general observation and no specific observation has been made in respect of any of the details or evidence furnished ... 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

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed.Absence or lack of enquiry is an attribute, a manifestation, of this non-application, so that an order imbued therewith would be liable to revision. This represents trite law, since

Disney Broadcasting (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1884/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 43(6)(c)

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

Om Prakash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1674/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Om Prakash Vs. Principal Cit 45 Matana Majra, Rohtak Fatehabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Cmspp7173D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

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. ” 3 Om Prakash, Fatehabad ... Prakash, Fatehabad Vs. Pr. CIT Further, Assessee’s claim that proceedings u/s 263 is invalid as there was no lack of enquiry or investigation, since as per Section 263, an order passed by the AO shall also be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

Jai Parkash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1675/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2018-19 Jai Parkash, Vs. Principal Commissoiner Of Bhattu Road, Income Tax, Rohtak Near Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad – 125050 Haryana (Pan: Amypk5328D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

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. 6. That further more the Ld. PCIT ... 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. It was further submitted that Ld. PCIT

Gloster Ltd(Formerly Known As Kettlewell Bullen & Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 519/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 40Section 74

assessee, Ld. Pr. CIT observed that AO had not made any enquiry or verification on the two issues thus, owing to lack of enquiry for verification as contained in Explanation 2(a) to sec. 263, the assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 263Section 92C

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

Shri Viswanathan Udayakumar, Coimbatore vs. The Principal CIT-I, Coimbatore

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

ITA 346/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 346/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Viswanathan Udayakumar, The Principal Commissioner 81, Periyasamy Road (W), Vs. Of Income Tax-1, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore -641 002. Pan: Aampu 5272A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate & Shri N. Arjunraj, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

proceedings has completely scrutinized the original balance sheet as well as revised balance sheet or correct balance sheet and hence, there is no lack of enquiry or non-verification of documents by the AO and rather the AO has correctly made assessment and there is no error in the assessment