“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

Centre for General Education Society, Ghaziabad vs. CIT(Exemption), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2423/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhricentre For General Vs. Cit Exemption Education Society, Lucknow A-16, Site-3, Merrut Road Upside Indl. Area, Ghaziabad (Pan: Aaatc8262G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Govind Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Jitender Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. & Govind Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

various dates. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that this is not a case of lack of enquiry rather full enquiry was conducted by the AO and even the CIT(E) could not bring on record that the donation given is not genuine

Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Sahakari Pat Maryadit, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 1217/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Dharmaveer Sambhaji Nagari Pcit-3, Pune Sahakari Pat Maryadit Vs. A/P Manchar, Tal-Ambegaon, Dist. Pune – 410503 Pan: Aaaad5228N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandip Argade Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 13-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sandip ArgadeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

conducted due enquiries while partly disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P of the Act and it is not a case of lack of enquiry or no enquiry. It is not a case where no enquiry has been conducted by the Assessing Officer with respect to the claim under consideration ... issue stands decided in favour of the assessee by various decisions. It is also his submission that it is not a case of lack of enquiry or no enquiry. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case after considering the various submissions made by the assessee to the specific queries

Mange Ram, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Amwpr7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Faridabad’S Order Dated 04.12.2023 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1058449758(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Herd Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision

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

which he ought to have carried out in respect of the enhanced compensation received by the assessee. It is not a case of 'lack of enquiry'. Merely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order ... evidence available on records, it cannot be alleged as done by the Ld. PCIT that it is a case of 'no enquiry' or 'lack of enquiry'. No doubt that the Ld. AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous as held

Harun Ali, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Dehradun

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

ITA 3444/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 4

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

Icici Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai -4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

assessment order represented a plausible view taken after due enquiry was expressly rejected. The learned Principal Commissioner held that the record clearly demonstrated lack of enquiry and non- application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. (8) Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Lakhi Ram, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 2028/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Lakhi Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 70, Village- Dhanwapur, Ward-1(4), Daultabad, Gurugram, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awzpr6814L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061566876(1) Dated 27.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

have carried out in respect of the enhanced compensation received 4 Lakhi Ram by the assessee. It is not a case of 'lack of enquiry'. Merely because in his order the Ld. AO did not make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the order could ... 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

Valour Autopack, Gor Khijadiya, Morbi Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT 1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

enquiry is needed, all these decisions are within the domain of the assessing officer.As we have noted above that there is difference between ‘Lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is for the AO to decide the extent of enquiry to be made as it is his satisfaction as what

Shamkant Keshav Kotkar (Prop. Nandan Builders), Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1358/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 26Section 263Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT

Decent Securities (P) Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4799/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roym/S. Decent Securities (P) Ltd, Vs. Pr. Cit, Kd-195, Pitampura, Delhi-1 New Delhi-110034 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacd4440N Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Shri Ankit Kumar, Adv Revenue By: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 13/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

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

Catholic Education Society, Mumbai vs. Income Tax (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5030/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalcatholic Education Society Vs Income Tax Department Cit 338, Bb, Michael Villa, New (Exemption) Hall Road, Kurla (W), Mumbai Room No.601, 6Th Floor, 400070 Cumballa Hill Mtnl Te Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Pan: (Aaatc5704H) Mumbai 400026 Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate & Shri Shashi Bekal, Ca Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(Exemptions), Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1075306167(1) Dated 30.03.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 05.09.2022 For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption) (Cit(E)) Has Erred In Issuing A Notice & Passing An 2

For Appellant: Dr K Shivram Sr. Advocate and Shri Shashi Bekal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

matter to the assessing officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted

Manaveeya Development & Finance Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 480/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.480/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Manaveeya Development & Finance Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 034. Hyderabad – 500 004. Telangana. Pan Aaecm1085E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca B Satyanarayana Murthy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 24.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA B Satyanarayana MurthyFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 948Section 94B

learned Pr. CIT and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry on these aspects and, therefore, there is a complete lack of enquiry on the part of 8 ITA.No.480/Hyd./2025 the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order which renders the assessment order as erroneous ... even an attempt to verify the correctness of the claim u/sec.94B of the Act. There is no quarrel on the point that lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer renders the order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. ACIT/DCIT- Int. Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int.-Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT- Int.Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT, Int. Tax., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Shanti Rice Mills, Karnal vs. Pr.CIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1162/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

enquiry as conducted by the Assessing Officer in this case should be construed as “an inadequate enquiry” rather it is a case of “lack of enquiry” because as discussed above, the immediate source of the unsecured loan ... para no. 6 of this order was not at all enquired by the Assessing Officer in this case. In such a situation of “ lack of enquiry” the Ld. PCIT ITA No.- 1162/Del/2020 Shan" Rice Mills was justified to pass an order u/s 263 of the case setting aside the assessment

Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Limited, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 791/HYD/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.791/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Amara Raja Energy & Mobility Limited, The Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. Tirupati – 517 520. Tirupati Pan Aabca9264E (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca E Phalguna Kumar राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: CA E Phalguna KumarFor Respondent: Sri Pavan Kumar Beerla, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

completing the assessment and, therefore, there was no error in the assessment order amenable for revision u/sec.263 of the Act on account of lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the assessee in the books of accounts ... assessment order and, therefore, the same cannot be a ground to hold that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous for lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has relied upon the following decisions

Worldview Education Services Private Lmited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

cannot exercise his powers u/sec.263 of the Act. He has further contended that the Pr. CIT has not made out a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer and, therefore, set-aside the assessment order for further enquiry by the Assessing Officer, is not permissible ... assessee, has accepted the claim. Therefore, the case in hand is admittedly and undisputedly does not fall in the category of ‘lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry’ on the part of the Assessing Officer. It is manifest from the show cause notice itself that the Pr. CIT has initiated

Aamir Khatri, Mumbai vs. DCIT-17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 3586/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263

under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is unsustainable as the power to revise can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case of inadequate enquiry and same is bad in law. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

completed the assessment by allowing the three claims made by the assessee. It is a settled law that there is a difference between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. In the present case, it is certainly not a case of “lack of enquiry". The moment the AO issued notice u/s.142 ... satisfaction completed the assessment allowing the three claims made by the assessee. It is a settled law that there is a difference between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. In the present case, it is certainly not a case of “lack of enquiry". The moment the AO issued notice u/s.142