← 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

Rsg Properties Private Limited, Patiala vs. PCIT, Patiala

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

ITA 437/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Cajla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

balance land stock of 1649.09 sq.yards was not developed during the FY 2016-17.” 9. It is therefore clearly a case of lack of enquiry on part of the Assessing officer to examine the matter relating to the valuation of closing stock. The contention of the ld AR that

Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1278/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ranisati Hosiery (P) Ltd…….….…………............…...……………....Appellant Siddha Weston, Room No.126, 9, Weston Street, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Aafcr2959B] Vs. Pcit-4, Kolkata…………..….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 31, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 18, 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 12.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. As Per The Note Of The Registry, The Appeal Is Time Barred By 1722 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed Which Is Further Supported With The Affidavit Of Shri Bhupendra Bansal, Director Of The Assessee Company. It Has Been Explained That The Impugned Order Dated 12.03.2019. That The Copy Of The Order Was Not Served Upon The Assessee. That The Assessee Came To Know About The Passing Of The Impugned Order Only After The Receipt Of The Subsequent Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act. The Assessee

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

discharged its onus as discussed supra, and still if the Second Pr. CIT had to find the order of Second AO erroneous for lack of enquiry or for not collecting the entire facts, then the Second Pr. CIT ought to have called for the additional facts which he thinks that

S D Educational Society, Hisar vs. Pr CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishanan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 119Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

point out any error or defect in the assessment order so far as it concerns unsecured loans. The Ld. CIT(E) only alleges lack of enquiry. That impression of the Ld. CIT(E) was insufficient to invoke proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. The said proceedings would get ignited only ... 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." “Para 19. The CIT in the order has recorded that

M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Indore vs. PCIT-2, Indore

ITA 339/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Abhinav Enterprises, Pr. Commissioner Of 85, Income-Tax-2, Ramchandra Nagar Extn., Indore. बनाम/ Aerodrum Road, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan : Aanfa6300Q Assessee By Shri S.S.Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11.03.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263

which placed on record. Books of accounts were produced and examined on test check basis.” 14. Ld. AR submitted that there is no lack of enquiry on the part of AO. He submitted that the PCIT is trying to treat the assessment-order as erroneous-cum-prejudicial only to substitute

Pincity Jewlhouse Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, CC, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 10ASection 147Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5

order of the PCIT argued that the even the PCIT has not given his finding and he merely suggested that there is lack of enquiry and non deriving of inference in the order. Even he has not invoked explanation 2 of the section 263 and thus the order passed ... order by holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim benefit u/s. 10AA of the Act and he hold that there is lack of enquiry by the ld. AO on the points upon which the assessment was reopened. The 41 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT ld. Counsel representing

Britannia Industries Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 462/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(i)Section 43BSection 56(2)(x)Section 80J

considered and held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under section 263 of the Act on the ground of lack of enquiry or non-enquiry. The ld. A.R. also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Peerless General ... discussed with the authorised representative of the assessee. If that be so, it could not have been stated that there was any lack of enquiry on the part of the assessing officer. That apart, the Tribunal also admits that a paper book containing 124 pages of documents were also placed

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Ambala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

passed a speaking order accepting the source of cash deposits. We therefore find that it is clearly not a case of lack of enquiry or adequate enquiry on part of the AO. Given the fact that the transactions were undertaken by the father of the assessee who has since expired

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further failing to appreciate that alleged inadequate enquiry in the manner, suggested without any independent evidence and, without any further enquiries ... disallowed had been made as per the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act; that hence, it was a clear case of lack of enquiry and, therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; that the AO should conduct detailed enquiries

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further failing to appreciate that alleged inadequate enquiry in the manner, suggested without any independent evidence and, without any further enquiries ... disallowed had been made as per the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act; that hence, it was a clear case of lack of enquiry and, therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; that the AO should conduct detailed enquiries

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

considerations; and therefore unsustainable. 2.2 That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that it is a case of "lack of enquiry" and, further failing to appreciate that alleged inadequate enquiry in the manner, suggested without any independent evidence and, without any further enquiries ... disallowed had been made as per the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act; that hence, it was a clear case of lack of enquiry and, therefore, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; that the AO should conduct detailed enquiries

Eastern Drug & Sanitary Product, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40

parties of NRHM scam, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has also taken note of this fact and therefore there was lack of enquiry by the AO. Accordingly, he set-aside the entire assessment order to decide afresh after taking note of the observations and to carry out verification ... much as at one place she alleges that the AO did not make any enquiry and at another she complains of the lack of enquiry. Both averments are contrary to facts. Para 4.3 - Both in the original assessment and in the reassessment the respective AOs have clearly mentioned about

M/S. Mdr Cranes & Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 353/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Feb 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.353 /Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) M/S Mdr Cranes & Infrastructure Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Hig-1, D.No.49-58-4 Circle-3(1) Green Park Colony Visakhapatnam Akkayapalem, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aagcm1052M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr.Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

erroneously. The Ld.DR further 7 I.T.A. No.353/Viz/2017, A.Y.2012-13 M/s MDR Cranes & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Visakhapatnam submitted that it is clear cut case of lack of enquiry and hence the Ld.PCIT has rightly initiated the 263 proceedings. He, therefore, pleaded to uphold the order passed by the Ld.PCIT and dismiss

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

under section 263 cannot be invoked.’ It may however, be noted that the instance case is neither the case of inadequate enquiry nor lack of enquiry during assessment proceedings as it can be seen that due enquiries were conducted by the Ld. AO. Therefore, in view of such legal position

Gulshan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 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 us 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. 6. That further more the learned Principal ... 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

Sterling Farm Research and Services Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassterling Farm Research & Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Pvt. Ltd. Kochi 29/2469 C2, Sterling House Vs. Pettah, Poonithura S.O. Ernakulam 682038 [Pan:Aadcs3199J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

appeal before us. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 4.1 The law in the matter is trite. Lack of enquiry would by itself result in the ensuing assessment as 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. This represents trite law, since

Lambda Therapeutic Research Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2018-19 Lambda Therapeutic Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Research Ltd. Ahmedabad. Lambda House, Plot No.38 Survey No.388 S.G. Highway Gota, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaacl 4089 R

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Heman, Sr.Advocate
Section 115BSection 263Section 263o

without prejudice to above, the Hon'ble PCIT failed to appreciate this is a case of inadequate enquiry and not a case of lack of enquiry as during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 30.12.2020 called for details of foreign asset in the nature

ITO, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh vs. M/S Longia Engineers, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 250Section 263Section 263(1)

responses/submissions filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, we find that it is not a case of lack of enquiry on part of the AO and rather, we find that the matter has been thoroughly examined by the AO and after going through the financial statements

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

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

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

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

Purnimasareen, Panipat vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 892/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Smt. Purnima Sareen Vs. Pr. Cit, 744-745, Model Town, Rohtak Panipat, Haryana-132103 Pan Bokps2116C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)

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