← All Phrases

“inadequate enquiry”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 263401 judgments

The decision most relied on for inadequate enquiry is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83), cited in 2,943 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on inadequate 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. Max India Ltd.
295 ITR 282 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,162
citing judgments

Under Section 263, an assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue merely because the Principal Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's (AO) view, particularly if the AO has adopted one of two permissible views in law, unless that view is completely unsustainable. If due inquiries were made, the AO's order does not become erroneous solely because the fact of inquiries was not recorded.

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. Nirav Modi
390 ITR 292 · 2017 · High Court
286
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 merely on the ground of "inadequate enquiry" by the Assessing Officer (AO) if the AO has conducted an enquiry, examined evidence, and formed a possible view. For Section 263 to apply, the PCIT must demonstrate that the assessment order is both erroneous (contrary to law) and prejudicial to the revenue.

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan
384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court
264
citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

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.

Judgments citing inadequate enquiry

Bhartesh Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

ITA 326/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish AgarwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

verification of source of Cash deposited by assessee, which has been specifically mentioned in the Assessment Order, therefore there is neither lack of not inadequate enquiry and case does not fulfil the requirements of Revision and order passed by ld. PCIT deserves to be set aside. 3. That the appellant ... holding the order of AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of inadequate enquiry made by AO while passing order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, we find that proper and sufficient enquiries were conducted by the AO at the time

Hitkari and Swaraj Enterprises Private Limited, Barmer vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

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

there was no enquiry by the Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT. It was held that the lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer was a valid reason for revision of the assessment order. The Id. Tribunal further held that it can safely ... been duly examined by the AO and even the ld PCIT has not recorded any adverse findings in terms of lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry on part of the AO. In light of aforesaid discussions, we hereby set-aside the order passed by the ld PCIT

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

recorded. CIT cannot remand the 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

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

PCIT has rightly invoked the provision of Section 263, wherein the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is on account of inadequate enquiry and non- application of mind to the facts of the case presented by the assessee. Therefore the Ld. PCIT set aside the erroneous assessment order passed

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

Income tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of 15 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited enquiry, again the Commissioner of Income tax must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

Income tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of 15 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited enquiry, again the Commissioner of Income tax must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

Income tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of 15 M/s. Pioneer Investcorp Limited enquiry, again the Commissioner of Income tax must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry

Mylan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-16(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Vs. Ito,Ward-16(3) Private Limited I.T.Towers, Ac Guards Plot No.564/A/22, Masab Tank Road No.92 Hyderabad-500 004 Jubillee Hills, Hyderabad Telangana-500 096

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya,CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

taxmann 436, he submitted that Hon’ble High Court in said decision has held that there is a distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Ld.PCIT to pass order u/s. 263 merely because

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee before the ld. PCIT. Infact, we find the ld. PCIT had changed his stand from „lack of enquiry‟ by the ld. AO to „inadequate enquiry‟ while passing the revision order u/s. 263. In the show-cause notice, the ld. PCIT states that no enquiries were carried ... framed by the ld. AO „without making enquiries‟. This proves the complete shifting of stand by the ld. PCIT from “No Enquiry” to “Inadequate Enquiry” and to “No Enquiry”. Finally in para 7.6 of his order, the ld. PCIT concludes that “full enquiry” was not made

Tata Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

assessee before the ld. PCIT. Infact, we find the ld. PCIT had changed his stand from „lack of enquiry‟ by the ld. AO to „inadequate enquiry‟ while passing the revision order u/s. 263. In the show-cause notice, the ld. PCIT states that no enquiries were carried ... framed by the ld. AO „without making enquiries‟. This proves the complete shifting of stand by the ld. PCIT from “No Enquiry” to “Inadequate Enquiry” and to “No Enquiry”. Finally in para 7.6 of his order, the ld. PCIT concludes that “full enquiry” was not made

P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata P-37A, Nani Gopal Roychowdhury Vs. Avenue, Anada Palit Road, Kolkata- 700014. Pan: Aadcp 0094 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Respondent By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Pr. Cit, Kolkata-2 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/104144167(1) Dated 24.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Through This Appeal, The Assessee Has Essentially Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Invoking The Impugned Revisionary Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & Passing The Order Thereunder For Which, The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Eight Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity. The Two Issues Which Have Been Considered By The Ld. Pr. Cit For The Purpose Of Invoking The Revisionary Proceedings & Referred In The Grounds Of Appeal Are (I) Deduction U/S 80G Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 20,000/- For Which No Evidence In Support Of Payment Of Donation Is Produced To Ascertain Its Veracity (Ii) Deduction U/S 80G

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

cannot remand the 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

Group M Media India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Comm. of Income Tax-1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1296/MUM/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhgroup M Media India Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax-1(3)(1), 7Th & 8Th Floor, A Wing, Room No. 330, 3 Rd Floor, The Orb, Jw Marriott Aayakar Bhavan, Sahar, Andheri (W), Churchage, Mumbai Mumbai – 400099 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaccm7365H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nikhil Tiwari & M.P. Lohia Respondent By : Ashok Kumar Kardam

For Appellant: Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

without appreciating that Section 263 cannot be invoked in case where the view taken by the learned PCIT is based on the presumption of inadequate enquiry being made at the time of regular assessment proceedings (and it is not the case of no enquiry done by learned Assessing Officer), without

Red Monster Mobile Pvt Ltd., Mumbai-400021 vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai-400020

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1248/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blered Monster Mobile Private Limited V. Pr.Cit –3 213, Raheja Chambers Room No. 612, 6Th Floor Free Press Journal Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aagcr9963G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

holding the order of AO as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of inadequate enquiry made by AO while passing order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. However, we find that proper and sufficient enquiries were conducted by the AO at the time

Valli Agro Food Industries, Sattur vs. ITO, Ward 5, Virudhunagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 884/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.884/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Valli Agro Food Industries, V. The Pcit, 36, South Street, Madurai-1 Sattur-626 203. [Pan: Aaifv 9086 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

explanation of the assessee, then there is no scope for the PCIT to take up said issue for revision proceedings on the guise of inadequate enquiry. We further noted that the PCIT may assume jurisdiction to revise :: 6 :: assessment order, in a case, where there is no enquiry

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

ITA 1675/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 263

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and held that in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked. In our opinion, in the instant case, this ... neither the case of inadequate enquiry nor lack of enquiry at the regular assessment stage. 14 M/s. Aadi Industries Limited 28. Taking into consideration the entire gamut of facts and judicial decisions, placed before us, we are of the considered opinion that the CIT could not have invoked the jurisdiction

M/S. Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Bangalore

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

ITA 445/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 17Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 37

exercised to invalidate the action of AO. Various judicial precedence has laid down the ratio that lack of enquiry/no enquiry is different from inadequate enquiry and it is only in case of no enquiry by the AO, Pr. CIT/CIT can exercise jurisdiction

Sri. Pavan Kandkur, Hubballi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

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

ITA 522/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Pavan Kandkur Vs Principle Commissioner Of Cts No. 3046, Hirepeth Nagar Income Tax Near Akkikonda Aayakar Bhavan Hubballi 580020 Navanagar Pan – Anipk4256B Hubballi 580025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Balram R. Rao, Adv. Revenue By: Ms. Neera Malmotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit, Hubali Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 23.03.2022 For Ay 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Conditions 1. Precedent Being Absent The Proceedings-Initiated U/S.263 Of The Act Was Opposed To Law & The Order Passed U/S.263 Is Liable To Be Cancelled. On The Facts There Being No Error Much Less An Error Prejudicial To The 2. Interest Of Revenue, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Ought To Have Refrained From Invoking The Provisions Of Sec.263 Of The Act. The Learned Commissioner Ought To Have Considered The Submissions 3. Made By The Appellant & Ought Not To Have Invoked The Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Balram R. Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malmotra, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 5(3)Section 8

response to the same the Appellant had provided all the details as called for. The Ld. CIT failed to consider that inadequate enquiry would not give 5. an occasion to exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The learned Commissioner ought to have appreciated the fact that

M/S Metro Development, Mumbai vs. PCIT -27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

well settled that revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act could be initiated by the ld. PCIT only for ‘lack of enquiry’ and not for ‘inadequate enquiry’. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto ... reported in 332 ITR 167. In the instant case, the ld. PCIT is only trying to conclude that the ld. AO had made inadequate enquiries. The law is further settled by the recent decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of PCIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates

Vipul Lalit Sheth, Mumbai vs. ACIT-Circle 27(3), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find that the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue

ITA 887/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit Vipul Lalit Sheth R.No.401, 4Th Floor, 2/2, Kailash Niwas, Tower No.6,’ R.B. Mehta Road Vs. Ghatkopar (East), Vashi, Mumbai-400 077 Navi Mumbai 400703 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabps7946J Assessee By : Shri Ripple G Trashawala, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Ripple G Trashawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

were verified by the learned Assessing Officer therefore, it cannot be stated that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer suffers from any inadequate enquiry or lack of inquiry. He further relied on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 2690 & 2691 /Mum/2016 in case

Fdc Limited, Mumbai vs. Naresh Kumar Balodia Pr -CIT -1, Mumbai

In the result, the order under Section 263 of the Act passed by the learned PCIT on 22ndMarch 2022 for A

ITA 742/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrirahul Chaudhary, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Fdc Limited Income Tax–I, Fdc Limited 142–148, Room No. 330, Fdc Limited 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan S.V. Road, Vs. Jogeshwari (West), Mk Road Mumbai 400102 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacf0253H Assessee By : Shri K Shivaram & Shri Rahul Hakani, Ars Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri K Shivaram &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iv)

treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue; 4. Assuming without admitting that the present case was a case of inadequate enquiry, the Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that the power of revision envisaged under section 263 of the Act and the Explanation 2 thereto ... where no enquiry as required under the law is done and that it is not open to invoke the said provisions in cases of inadequate enquiry; 5. The Pr. CIT failed to show that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon