← 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

Paramjit Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 327/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

assessment order u/s 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground that the assessment order was passed under inadequate enquiry. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT, has erred in holding that the assessment order requires to be revised u/s 263 since the interest received ... examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability

Inder Kaur, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 326/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

assessment order u/s 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground that the assessment order was passed under inadequate enquiry. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT, has erred in holding that the assessment order requires to be revised u/s 263 since the interest received ... examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability

Sh. Amarjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

assessment order u/s 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground that the assessment order was passed under inadequate enquiry. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT, has erred in holding that the assessment order requires to be revised u/s 263 since the interest received ... examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability

Sh. Gurdeep Singh Mahal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 233/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

assessment order u/s 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground that the assessment order was passed under inadequate enquiry. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT, has erred in holding that the assessment order requires to be revised u/s 263 since the interest received ... examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability

Sh. Devender Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -1, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 192/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

assessment order u/s 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground that the assessment order was passed under inadequate enquiry. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT, has erred in holding that the assessment order requires to be revised u/s 263 since the interest received ... examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability

Sh. Baljinder Singh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT, Chandigarh -1, Chandigarh

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 167/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

assessment order u/s 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground that the assessment order was passed under inadequate enquiry. 1.3 The Worthy Pr. CIT, has erred in holding that the assessment order requires to be revised u/s 263 since the interest received ... examining this basic legal distinction, resulting in incorrect allowance of exemption. 29. The learned DR submits that this is not a case of inadequate enquiry but a case of complete lack of enquiry. The assessment order is silent on: the head under which interest income was assessed,  the applicability

M/S. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Kanchipuram vs. PCIT-4, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

ground for proceedings assessee u/s.263 of the Act. It is a settled principle that there is a distinction between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is only in cases of 'lack of inquiry' that such a course of action u/s.263 of the Act would be open. In this regard ... passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. However, this Explanation does not obliterate the distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”, a distinction consistently recognised by the Courts. It is only in cases of complete absence of enquiry that revisionary jurisdiction can be validly assumed

Choksi Ranchhodlal Kishordas, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 558/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: us, A.Y. 2013-14, in the case of the assessee. According to the Ld. PCIT, the reasons for which the case of the assessee was reopened was not properly inquired into by the AO and, therefore, the assessment order, according to him, was erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue for not having made any addition on account of income which was believed to have escaped assessment in the case of the assessee. The reopening, it transpires, was resorted to on finding that the assessee had received

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

with explanation and evidences regarding the source of the amounts received from Shri Renuka Mata Society. That it was not a case inadequate enquiry by the AO at all. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the Ld.PCIT had ignored the documents placed on record relating to the re-assessment ... clearly, we hold are not in consonance with law. In fact, we find that the finding of the Ld.PCIT of the AO having conducted inadequate enquiry is without any basis. 20. In the light of the above, we hold that in the facts of the present case, there

Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Limited, Shimoga vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

been an application of mind before allowing deduction has to be examined from the record of the case. The question of lack of enquiry / inadequate enquiry is also required to be kept in mind and mere inadequacy of the enquiry would not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Income ... been an application of mind before allowing expenditure has to be examined from the record of the case. The question of lack of enquiry / inadequate enquiry is also required to be kept in mind and mere inadequacy of the enquiry would not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Income

Bharath Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore -1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

been an application of mind before allowing deduction has to be examined from the record of the case.The question of lack of enquiry / inadequate enquiry is also required to be kept in mind and mere inadequacy of the enquiry would not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Income Tax under ... been an application of mind before allowing expenditure has to be examined from the record of the case. The question of lack of enquiry / inadequate enquiry is also required to be kept in mind and mere inadequacy of the enquiry would not confer jurisdiction on the Commissioner of Income

Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Koramangala, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

acceptance of substantial and technically complex claims without any prima facie verification clearly falls in the category of “lack of enquiry” and not “inadequate enquiry.” Accordingly, the ratio of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. does not advance the case of the assessee. 15.4 We also note that the assessee tried to draw

Bsnl Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Hubballi vs. Pr. CIT, Hubballi

ITA 1108/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143Section 263Section 56Section 80P

ITA No.1108/Bang/2025 M/s. BSNL Employees Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Hubballi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A"BENCH: BANGALORE

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

vide ITA No.1879 of 2013, order dated 05.10.2015, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that inadequate enquiry by itself would not justify invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act unless the order is erroneous. 25. Referring to the decision ... revenue’ of whatsoever nature. 34. So far as the allegation of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) that the assessment order is erroneous for lack of inadequate enquiry is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even in cases of alleged inadequate enquiry, the Ld. CIT(Exemption) is duty bound

Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit Sirsi, Sirsi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Huballi

ITA 1165/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Prakash Hegde, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)

ITA No.1165/Bang/2025 Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Sirsi Page 1 of 30 ITA No.1165/Bang/2025 Adarsha Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Sirsi IN THE

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai

ITA 2666/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 145(2)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 40

applied only when there was lack of enquiry, or no enquiry made by the AO, and cannot be applied for inadequate enquiry by the AO, and that para 2 of the impugned order itself states that the "following issues were not examined thoroughly by the assessing officer". Without prejudice

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

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 and in law in setting aside

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

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 is required under

Dharam Chand Agarwal, Kanpur (Uttar Pardesh) vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

Assessing Officers and therefore, the failure to make an addition on account of incorrect appreciation of facts or law or on account of inadequate enquiry would be a subject open to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263. It is pertinent to point out that in the matter

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

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

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)

basis of the said cash balance of Rs. 850428.66. 6.8 Therefore, in view of the above facts it is not a case of inadequate enquiry as contended by the assessee because in the given facts of the case it cannot be said that an improper enquiry as conducted ... 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