← 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 M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 106/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S M.P. Warehousing Pr. Cit-1 & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Office Complex, Block-1, Gautam Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aadcm 7742 B Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) …. (d) …” 7. Finally, the Ld. PCIT concluded that there was a complete lack of enquiry on the part of AO; therefore the assessment-order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly

North Bihar Power Distrubution Co. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-1, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Kumar,FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)

issues which formed the basis for passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act, we note that it is not a case of lack of enquiry. We observe that Ld. PCIT has not applied his mind to arrive at a consideration which is erroneous in so far as prejudicial ... matter to the assessing officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. 7.2. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—There is a distinction between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry"—If there is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under ... merely because he has a different opinion in the matter—Such a course of action is open only in cases of "lack of enquiry" CIT V Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—CIT came to the conclusion that the issue

George Kochuparambil, Prop. United Granites & Metals, Thodupuzha vs. Central Circle, Kochi

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

ITA 190/COCH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Juduicial Member & Ms. Padmavathy Sshri George Kochuparambil Kochuparambil House Dcit/Acit, Central Vazhithala P.O. Vs. Circle Thodupuzha Kochi Idukki 685583 Pan – Afjpk9650E Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Mathew Joseph, Ca Respondent By: Shri M. Jarasekhar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Jarasekhar, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

contrary, the learned D.R. submitted that though notice under Section 143(2) has been issued to the assessee there is lack of enquiry by the AO and therefore initiation of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act was rightly done. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

ACIT, 80 taxmann.com 273 (Chennai). 14. In reply the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. Pr.CIT has neither proved lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer and nor pointed out any error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel submits that Ld. Pr.CIT has completely ... merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It was held that it is only in cases of lack of enquiry that such a course of action would be opened. While holding so the Hon’ble High Court observed as under: - “We have considered the rival submissions

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry. Unless there is an established case of total lack of enquiry. 4.1 Kindly refer CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), wherein Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there ... prejudicial to the interest of revenue in allowing assessee's claim of deduction under s. 801A of the Act, either due to lack of enquiry or otherwise, is the original assessment order passed under s. 143(3) r/ws.144C of the Act and not the re-assessment order. Therefore, the period

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

order of the Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 on the common issues of being initiated on the basis of audit objection and lack of enquiry on the part of the AO, and therefore, these appeals were heard together and adjudicated by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity ... necessary enquiries and taking one plausible view where two view are possible and specific point of losses or leakages of revenue due to lack of enquiry on the part of the AO are not pointed out by the Ld. PCIT after taking rebuttal of the assesse on record

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

order of the Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 on the common issues of being initiated on the basis of audit objection and lack of enquiry on the part of the AO, and therefore, these appeals were heard together and adjudicated by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity ... necessary enquiries and taking one plausible view where two view are possible and specific point of losses or leakages of revenue due to lack of enquiry on the part of the AO are not pointed out by the Ld. PCIT after taking rebuttal of the assesse on record

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

order of the Ld. PCIT passed u/s 263 on the common issues of being initiated on the basis of audit objection and lack of enquiry on the part of the AO, and therefore, these appeals were heard together and adjudicated by this consolidated order for the sake of brevity ... necessary enquiries and taking one plausible view where two view are possible and specific point of losses or leakages of revenue due to lack of enquiry on the part of the AO are not pointed out by the Ld. PCIT after taking rebuttal of the assesse on record

Diamond Heritage, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. K. Bhagat, CA & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee due to the action of 6 Diamond Heritage v. Pr.CIT the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings on account of lack of enquiry. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 0083 held as under: “Held

M/S. Asean Box Corporation, Gandhidham - Kutch vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

Assessing Officer has simply accepted the submission of the assessee without going into the detailed verification and hence this amounted to a “lack of enquiry” by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the PCIT held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ... expenditure claimed by the assessee during the year under consideration. Therefore, in the instant facts, it cannot be stated that there was any lack of enquiry or non-application of mind by the Ld. AO in respect of justification for expenses claimed by the assessee under Section Asian Box Corporation

Dindayal Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha, Ujjain vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 81/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dindayal Paraspar Pr. Cit-1, Sahakari Sanstha Indore Maryadit, बनाम/ 26, Betal Marg, Freeganj, Vs. Ujjain (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaaad 4995 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.03.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee has filed reply; and the Ld. AO has stated his careful consideration in the assessment-order as well. Therefore, there is no lack of enquiry as stated by Ld. PCIT. 12. Having demonstrated so, Ld. AR also argued one important aspect in the matter i.e. the assessee has claimed

Mr. Ramanlal Raghabhi Patel, Daman vs. The PCIT, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Ramanlal Raghabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Near Check Post, Dabhel, Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Accpp2952J

Section 143(3)Section 263

lawfully exigible has not been imposed. Similarly in the case of Sunbeam Auto the courts have held that in the case of lack of enquiry course of action under section 263 is valid. In this case on the facts of the record it can be observed that the Assessing Officer ... exemption of the Long Term Capital Gain. This is not the case of inadequate enquiry but is a clear case of lack of enquiry which makes it different from the case of Nirav Modi (supra). Obtaining of the information about the transaction cannot be taken as akin to enquiring about

Hotel Royal Garden, Daman and Diu (Ut) vs. The PCIT, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hotel Royal Garden, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Main Road, Dabhel, Nani Daman – 396210, Daman & Diu (Ut). "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaefh2587H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Darshit J. Naik, Ca With Jayraj M. Naik, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/03/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

lawfully exigible has not been imposed. Similarly in the case of Sunbeam Auto the courts have held that in the case of lack of enquiry course of action under section 263 is valid. In this case on the facts of the record it can be observed that the Assessing Officer ... exemption of the Long Term Capital Gain. This is not the case of inadequate enquiry but is a clear case of lack of enquiry which makes it different from the case of Nirav Modi (supra). Obtaining of the information about the transaction cannot be taken as akin to enquiring about

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 263

PCIT is perverse to facts on record in holding assessment order erroneous and prejudice to the interest of revenue on account of lack of enquiry. Accordingly, the order passed by the PCIT -1, Jalandhar u/s 263, is cancelled being bad in law. 15 Sukhjinder Singh

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

electrical and electronic goods. Revision of it’s impugned assessment is on several issues on which the revisionary authority found an absence or lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer 2 M/s. Kunnummakkara Service/Income Tax Officer, W(2)(2) (AO), necessitating restoration back to his file for the said verification ... 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 co-opted on the Statute

Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Limited, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

decision relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee is one of the plausible views and we see that there is no lack of enquiry on the part of Ld. AO and we find that he has applied his mind and allowed the claim to the assessee. 9. Thus

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

above have been undertaken by the AO while completing the original assessment and it is not the case of ‘no enquiry’/’lack of enquiry’ but the case of ‘inadequate enquiries’ were conducted by the AO on this issue. It is well settled that the revision jurisdiction u/s.263 ... could be invoked only for 'lack of enquiry' and not for 'inadequate enquiry'. This is also being evident from the Explanation 2 below section 263(1) of the Act which reads as under: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

Pawan Meena, Plot No.91 vs. ITO, WD2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 410/JPR/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

satisfied about availability of cash in hand for making cash deposit during depotentiation. 4. Submission on Legal Position, Burden of Proof u/s 69A & Lack of Enquiry by AO Although the factual matrix of the case , apparently connotes , without any iota of doubt , that appellant had sufficient cash in hand generated ... Lakh from father consumed , if same was not used for making redeposit of cash during demonetization period ? The appellant cannot be penalized for lack of enquiry & verification by the AO .Moreover , the appellant cannot be asked to prove the negative . Further to buttress the contention of the appellant ,Reliance

Ebixcash Ltd., Noida vs. Circle 5(1)(1), Gautam Budh Nagar

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

ITA 681/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Chandra Mohan Gargebixcash Ltd. Vs. Circle – 5(1)(1) Plot No.122 & 123, Nsez, Gautam Budh Nagar Phase-Ii, Noida Pan No. Aaace 9981 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri T. James Singson, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.03.2022 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Noida Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

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

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. 4. That the finding of the learned