← 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

Raj Singh, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

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

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 5 make elaborate discussion but was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee ... 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. 9 AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous

Rajpal, Jhajjar vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6697/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

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

Nutan Nagrik Sahakari Bank Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1023/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 10(15)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)

asking for justification of the claim. Detailed replies were filed and examined, and therefore, this is not a case of lack of enquiry. In support, the counsel relied on judicial decisions to submit that once an issue has been examined, revision under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Super Plastronics Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 in quantum addition is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3106/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

that Assessing Officer has not carried any verification of the information as stated to have been received from anonymous data. There was total lack of enquiry and application of mind at the part of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has blindly followed the anonymous data. Accordingly, he treated

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Super Plastronics Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 in quantum addition is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

that Assessing Officer has not carried any verification of the information as stated to have been received from anonymous data. There was total lack of enquiry and application of mind at the part of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has blindly followed the anonymous data. Accordingly, he treated

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Super Plastronics Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 in quantum addition is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3104/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

that Assessing Officer has not carried any verification of the information as stated to have been received from anonymous data. There was total lack of enquiry and application of mind at the part of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has blindly followed the anonymous data. Accordingly, he treated

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Super Plastronics Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for AY 2015-16 in quantum addition is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3103/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

that Assessing Officer has not carried any verification of the information as stated to have been received from anonymous data. There was total lack of enquiry and application of mind at the part of the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has blindly followed the anonymous data. Accordingly, he treated

Dhananjay Estate and Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandhananjay Estate & Reality Vs. Ito Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Cts 40-44, S. V. Road, Goregaon 400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 104. Pan: Aabcd8868M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 63

agricultural land so as to grant exemption u/s 2(14) of the Act. It is therefore submitted that assessment order suffers from lack of enquiry and has been rightly rectified by directing to the AO to verify the status of the land for its entitlement for exemption

Tara Vati, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Circle 3(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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

Charanjeet Singh, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6387/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Charanjeet Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 115, Baholi, Ward-1, Panipat Refinery, Panipat Panipat, Haryana Pan: Ddaps7473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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

Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vividoddeshagala Sahakari Sangha Niyamita Haliyal, Haliyal vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubbali

ITA 1186/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Shri Chatrapati Shivaji Vividoddeshagala Vs. Pcit, Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Hubli. Near Mlc Office, Bus Stand Road, Haliyal – 581 329, Karnataka. Pan : Aajas 9684 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Vinay K Kulkarni, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Vinay K Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

enquiries he has allowed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on the interest. Therefore, this is a case of lack of enquiry. The learned DR also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as relied on by the learned Pr.CIT and stated that

Jitendrasinh Zala, Jamnagar vs. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

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

ITA 871/RJT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

such assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this context, we note that there is difference between ‘Lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is for the assessing officer to decide the extent of enquiry to be made as it is his satisfaction ... assessing officer to conduct adequate enquiry. It is pertinent to mention here that there was as such no allegation of ‘no enquiry’ or ‘lack of enquiry’ or verification, because the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. himself found all the details/evidences in the assessment record, i.e. well within the A.O.’s possession

Ganga Bishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
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

Alicon Castalloy Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT, -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1377/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1377/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Alicon Castalloy Ltd., V The Pr.Commissioner Of Gat No.1426, Village S Income Tax-1, Pune. Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur, Pune – 412208. Pan: Aabcp0252B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak Revenue By Shri Aditya Shukla – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2025 For Assessment Year 2020-21 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1] The Learned Pr.C1T Erred In Revising The Asst, Order Passed U/S

Section 143(3)Section 263

aside by the Ld. PCIT by invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act since it is not a case of lack of enquiry but may be inadequate enquiry. Since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has raised the specific queries regarding the provision for expenses and the assessee ... Officer after considering the reply of the assessee has accepted the submissions made by the assessee, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry and therefore, respectfully following the decisions cited (supra), we hold that it is not a fit case for invoking the jurisdiction

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

revisional authority the AO has not made inquiries or verifications which should have been made, revisionary power can be invoked. Allegation of lack of enquiry by the AO has to be substantiated based on record and cannot be conjured out of thin air.” 7.5 In the case of LOIL Continental ... opinion of the revisional authority the AO has not made inquiries or verification which should have been made. 19 The above allegation of lack of enquiry by the AO has to be substantiated based on record and cannot be conjured out of thin air. 9. From the above reading

Anjani Agarwal, Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Pcit (Central) Kolkata-2, Anjani Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), 1D, Ashoka, 14, Ashoka Road, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Alipore H.O. Vs. 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700027, West Bengal 700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aehpa0038H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

unsustainable in law. Similarly the jurisdiction is not available to the PCIT even in case of inadequate enquiry. It is only lack of enquiry which gives jurisdiction to PCIT to invoke the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. 010. Considering the facts of the above case, in the light

ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram vs. Sunil Kumar, Gurugram

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

justified in treating said unsecured loan as fake and unexplained cash credit” 7.12 The High Court of Chhatisgarh while deciding the matter of lack of enquiry in the case of Commissioner Income Tax Bilaspur vs Shri Abdul Aziz held that: “19. In the case on hand

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

fact that the AO has not applied his mind on the issue. All the circumstances have to be seen. A case of lack of enquiry would by itself render the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In a case where there is inquiry

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

fact that the AO has not applied his mind on the issue. All the circumstances have to be seen. A case of lack of enquiry would by itself render the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In a case where there is inquiry

Vivek Nathuram Gavhane, Pune vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Pune

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

ITA 849/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 69C

assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous for want of enquiry on the claim. 10. The courts have made a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. If there was enquiry even an inadequate that would be itself give no occasion to the Commissioner to exercise the power ... after due verification and examination of the details filed before the Assessing Officer and it cannot be said that there is total lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer while allowing the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the assessment order cannot be termed as “erroneous”. There