“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

Pawansut Media Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 7, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viia)

claim by the assessee and the A.O. do not apply to the facts of the present case, since there is a lack of enquiry on the aspect of valuation of the shares in terms of Section 56(2)(viia) read with Rules 11U/11UA of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore ... PCIT. He submitted that in the instant case the Ld. PCIT has recorded a finding that it is a case of lack of enquiry for which he resorted to revisional powers as per the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. He submitted that Explanation-2 has been inserted

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

revised u/s Kapil Mehta vs. PCIT 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR also argued that it was not a case of lack of enquiry as was being stated by the Ld. Pr. CIT. It was argued that the Assessing Officer had conducted due enquiry although, the same might ... case of inadequate enquiry as the Ld. AR would want us to accept, but is rather a case of complete “lack of enquiry” by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, we hold that the Ld. Pr. CIT Kapil Mehta vs. PCIT was absolutely correct in invoking his revisionary powers

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

which also finds mentioned in the Assessment Order. (Page 30 of PB). It is not the case of the PCIT that there was lack of enquiry. According to the PCIT, the enquiry made was not adequate. There is a difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry ... invoked for lack of enquiry but not for inadequate enquiry. Even explanation 2 to section 263 states that the section can be invoked when the ‘Order is passed without making inquiries or verification’. Thus, if inquiry or verification is done at the level of the AO but the PCIT

M/S. Jns Instruments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1479/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2011-12 Jns Instruments Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Gi-48, G.T. Karnal Road Central -2, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Pan Aaacj7034Q New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 92C

decide whether the findings ITA No. 591/200S and connected matters 33 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

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since admittedly, undisputedly and undeniably not a case of “lack of enquiry” or “lack of investigation” and perusal of the show cause notice itself would show that it has not been denied or disputed that ... 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

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since admittedly, undisputedly and undeniably not a case of “lack of enquiry” or “lack of investigation” and perusal of the show cause notice itself would show that it has not been denied or disputed that ... Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since admittedly, undisputedly and undeniably not a case of “lack of enquiry” or “lack of investigation” and perusal of the show cause notice itself would show that it has not been denied or disputed that ... Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since admittedly, undisputedly and undeniably not a case of “lack of enquiry” or “lack of investigation” and perusal of the show cause notice itself would show that it has not been denied or disputed that ... Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

otherwise too inapplicable on the factual matrix of the facts of the instant case since admittedly, undisputedly and undeniably not a case of “lack of enquiry” or “lack of investigation” and perusal of the show cause notice itself would show that it has not been denied or disputed that ... Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT s., Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited [2017] 398 ITR 8 (Del.). There is no lack of enquiry or lack of investigation on the part of the A.O. Mere allegation of wrong opinion cannot confer jurisdiction by the Learned PCIT

M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 189/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2015-16 M/S Surjeet Auto Agency, Pr. Cit-2, 4-5, Lajpat Nagar, Raisen Bhopal बनाम/ Road, Apsara Cinema, Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aatfs 4110J Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Piush Parasar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 04.02.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for complete lack of enquiry on the part of the Ld. Assessing Officer on all the stated issues. 2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Income Tax Act,1961 holding it to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for complete lack of enquiry on the part of the Ld. Assessing Officer on all the stated issues. 3. That, the appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete any grounds of appeal before

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2552/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40A(3)

considered by various benches of the High Courts and the Tribunal and everywhere it has been held that cases where there is complete lack of enquiry would certainly fall in the ambit of section 263. However, in cases where the allegation is of “proper enquires”, the burden ... 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

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

material on record and provisions of the act, unjust and bad in law, more particularly when it is not a case of lack of enquiry. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. Pr. CIT-II, Indore erred in invoking the provision of section ... unsecured loans, loans and advances and interest thereon has been duly considered by the Ld. AO. Thus, it is not a case of lack of enquiry. 6 Shri Kailash Khandelwal 8. In response to the show cause notice issued u/s 263, assessee made all the required submissions along with documentary

Mikado Realtors (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri LalitFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 263

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

Whether enquiries in depth were made by the AO with regard to issue of shares at a large premium or there was lack of enquiry ?. III) Because the AO did not discuss the reasons for non-applicability of Section 56(2)(viib) in the assessment order, can it be considered ... were issued at a premium higher than the value determined as per Rule 11UA(2)(b) of Income tax Rules. There was neither “lack of enquiry” nor “inadequate enquiry” by the ACIT,hence the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial

M/S. Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

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

ITA 3287/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Vs Pr. Cit-9, Ltd., New Delhi. 81/41, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Pan : Aacck5784H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate; Shri Rajiv Sabharwal, Ca; & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca. Revenue By : Mrs. Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd March, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2010 Declaring An Income Of Rs.5,940/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Cit-Ii, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No. File 148/2012-13/2817 Dated 15Th March, 2013, Forwarded The Letter Of Investigation Ii, Delhi, Vide F. No.Dit (Inv.)-Ii/U/S 148/2012-13/197 Dated 12Th March, 2013 Giving Information About An Accommodation Entry Of Rs.40 Lakhs Received By The Assessee From M/S Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Humtum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Based On The Above, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Aashna Paul, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

application money stands duly explained and accepted in the assessment proceedings and there is no material on record to suggest that there is lack of enquiry. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the purported inadequate 9 enquiry cannot be made a ground to cloth the PCIT with jurisdiction ... PCIT in the instant case is not in accordance with the law. He submitted that there is a distinction between the lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. It is only in case of lack of enquiry that the PCIT/CIT is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

illegal and should be set aside. 11. The ld. Counsel submitted that admittedly, undisputedly and undeniably it is not a case of lack of enquiry or lack of investigation. A perusal of the show cause notice itself would show that it has not been stated in any manner ... various other decisions placed in the synopsis and submitted that proceedings u/s 263 cannot be initiated for inadequate enquiry, but, only for lack of enquiry which is distinct from inadequate enquiry. He accordingly submitted that the order passed by the CIT u/s 263 setting aside the assessment order passed

Ravindera Hire Purchase & Finance, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8398/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263

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. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Pr. CIT has erred both on facts

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA - 1179 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

cases where there is inadequate 2013:DHC:6339-DB ITA Nos. 1179/2010, 1366/2010, 1979/2010 & 2106/2010 Page 11 of 40 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

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1691 / 2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

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

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi V vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1404 / 2009HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H