← All Phrases

“lack of inquiry”

Rectification & RevisionSection 263Section 2631,087 judgments

The decision most relied on for lack of inquiry is CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108), cited in 990 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on lack of inquiry

CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.
203 ITR 108 · 1993 · High Court
990
citing judgments

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 merely because they hold a different opinion or believe a deeper inquiry was warranted if the Assessing Officer has applied their mind and conducted some inquiry. Revision under Section 263 is permissible only in cases of a complete lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, not for merely inadequate inquiry.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

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.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT
99 ITR 375 · 1975 · High Court
543
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

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 inquiry

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

appropriate inquiries/verifications of loans through which amounts have been introduced have not been examined by the AO while passing the assessment order. This lack of inquiry and consequent non-deriving of reasoned inference by the Assessing Officer has prima facie caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly ... inquiries / verifications of loans through which amounts have been introduced have not been examined by the AO while passing the assessment order. This lack of inquiry and consequent non deriving of reasoned inference by the Assessing Officer has prima facie caused prejudice to the interests of the revenue. Accordingly

Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax.Range, Mumbai

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

ITA 1409/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Jumbo Electronics Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 344, 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 104, The Summit Business Bay, Off Andheri-Kurla Road, Off Western Maharishi Karve Road, Vs. Express Highway, Opp. Cinemax/Pvr Mumbai-400020 Theatre, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093 Pan/Gir No. Aaacl5308H (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Krupa Gandhi/ Ms. Ayushi Modani/ Shri. Harshit Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri. Anksh Kapoor, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2023 : 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of Ld. Pcit Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act, Relevant To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged This Appeal On Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi/ Ms. AyushiFor Respondent: Shri. Anksh Kapoor, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

relied on various decisions to substantiate that at the most it can be a case of inadequate inquiry and not lack of inquiry. 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand controverted the said fact and contended that though the Ld. AO had asked the assessee to furnish

Nadiminty Ganapathy Sastry, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 303/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Nadiminty Ganapathy Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Sastry, Circle 14(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aalpg5424F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca Revenue By: Smt.T.H. Vijayalakshmi,Dr Date Of Hearing: 05/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 By The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. There Is A Delay Of 50 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Explaining The Reasons For Delay Along With An Affidavit. After Considering The Contents Of The Condonation Petition Filed Along With The Affidavit & After Hearing The Learned Dr, The Delay In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Smt.T.H. Vijayalakshmi,DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 94(7)

present case. In the case of Infinity Infotech Park Ltd vs. DCIT (Supra), the Tribunal has held that a case of lack of inquiry would by itself render the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It has been held that where there is inquiry

Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infrastures Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

discussion on other issues as pointed out by the Pr. CIT in the show cause notice. Therefore, it is a case of lack of inquiry on the part of the AO while passing the assessment order. He has relied upon the impugned order of the Pr. CIT. 9. We have ... pass the revision order u/s 263 of the Act. The sole ground for setting aside the order passed by the AO is lack of inquiry on the part of the AO in respect of these issues. However, we find that the AO issued show cause notice

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Sharad Goel, Raipur

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 93/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 250(4)Section 45(3)

properly, obligation to conduct proper inquiry shifts to commissioner (Appeals) and they cannot simply delete addition made by assessing officer on ground of lack of inquiry." 10. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions made ... conduct proper inquiry shifts to Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by Assessing Officer on ground of lack of inquiry.” 5.4 Based on the judgment in the case of Jansampark (supra), the ld. CIT-DR challenged the observations of ld. CIT(A) mentioning that, even

Shri Vijay Kumar Singhla, Mansa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

Commissioner to pass order under section 263, merely because he has a different opinion in matter; it is only in case of 'lack of inquiry' that such a cause of action can be open - Held, yes [Para 15] [In favour of assessee]” • CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA as reported ... Tribunal do not warrant interference of this Court. That being the position, the present case would not be one of „lack of inquiry" and, even if the inquiry was termed as inadequate, following the decision in M/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd (supra), "that would not by itself give occasion

Sachin Notified Area, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 343/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.343/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Sachin Notified Area, Vs. The Pcit, Surat-1 Plot No.5719, Unnati Building, Sachin Gidc, Sachin, Surat-394230. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaals0146H Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Appellant By Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 31/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

revised in the impugned order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason of any lack of inquiry that the AO ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly quash the order

Balaji Developers, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 281/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2016-17 Balaji Developers Vs. Acit Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aamfb2401J Assessee By: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, Ca Revenue By: Dr.K Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2023 Order Per Laliet Kumar, J.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee Reads As Under: “Ground No. 1: The Order Of The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Hyderabad, Is Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case. Ground No. 2: The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Hyderabad Erred In Holding That The Assessing Officer Has Not Conducted A Proper Examination Of The Receipts Pertaining To The Sale Of Various Flats, Where The Receipts Are Less Than The Amount Reflected In Form 26As. Ground No. 3: The Hon'Ble Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 4, Hyderabad Failed To Appreciate The Reasons For The Alleged Difference Between Income Reported By The Appellant & Amount Reflected In Form 26Aj In Respect Of Various Flats.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Bharadawaj, CAFor Respondent: Dr.K Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

order of the Assessing Officer being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. There is a difference between inadequate inquiries and lack of inquiry. In the present case sufficient and adequate enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer. Merely because the Assessing Officer had not written a detailed

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

sale instance of the similar situated land is available as on 01.04.1981. Thus, it is evident that this is not a case of lack of inquiry on the part of the AO while passing the assessment order and rather this is also not the case of the Pr. CIT that ... order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous due to lack of inquiry but the provision of section 263 were invoked by the Pr. CIT only on the basis of the report of the DVO received after completion of the assessment. It is pertinent to note that the report

Shreepal Humad, Indore vs. The Pr CIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 125/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishreepal Humad Pr. Cit-1 Near Civil Hospital, Bus Indore Vs. Stand Road, Manasa Madhya Pradesh (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaxph1346 K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21 .06.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263

inquiry was conducted by the AO while passing assessment order, therefore, the order of the AO is erroneous for lack of inquiry and the Pr. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act. He has relied upon the impugned order ... applying net profit rate certainly as a result of the inquiry conducted by the AO. Therefore, this is not a case of lack of inquiry on the part of the AO to render the assessment order as erroneous so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

Vachitra Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 26(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8148/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Shyam Sunder, Adv
Section 115BSection 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

wherein it has been opined by the Hon'ble Benches that once the assessee had furnished all the material there was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under section

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

erroneously, was not justified” 19 PARSHAVNATH BUILDERS VS PCIT, UDIAPUR 8.1 It is not the case of CIT that there was a complete/total lack of inquiry. Law is well settled that the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous simply on the allegation of inadequate enquiry. Unless there ... revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders under section

Rajkumar Impex Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 4, Chenai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 263

revenue. 1.4 The Hon’ble Delhi Court, in the cited decision, further observed that there is a fine though subtle distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that the Commissioner is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling

Rajendrasinh Manubha Jethwa, Porbandar vs. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot16 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

order. 8. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto 332 ITR 167 (Del.), made a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The Hon’ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior to the completion of assessment, the same cannot ... revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself, give occasion to I.T.A No. 158/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Raipur vs. M/S Kewalya Park, Civil Lines, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 171/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax , Vs M/S Kewalya Park Circle-3(1), Raipur Shop No. 14, First Floor, Bombay Market, Raipur (C.G) Pan No. :Aaifk 4253 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 250(4)Section 43C

conduct proper inquiry shifts to commissioner Appeals) and Tribunal and they cannot simply delete addition made by assessing office on ground of lack of inquiry" 9. "Whether on points of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a decision, thereby

Ga Infra Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., reported in 227 CTR 133, 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 Gabriel India Ltd. (supra

Jagdeep Bhargava, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1279/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 50C

revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders under ... merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open”. 30. Considering the facts of the case in totality from all possible angles, we failed to persuade ourselves to accept the contention

Kanoi Tea Private Limited, Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

Commissioner to pass orders under Sec.263 merely because he has a different opinion in the matter; that it is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open; that an assessment order made by the Income Tax Officer cannot be branded as erroneous ... Commissioner to pass orders under Sec.263 merely because he has a different opinion in the matter; that it is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action would be open; that an assessment order made by the Income Tax Officer cannot be branded as erroneous

Shri Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 282/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.282/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Kiran Kasturchand Shah, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat 235-236, Shankheshwar Complex, Kailash Nagar, Sagrampura, Surat – 395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agzps1397K Appellant By Shri Kiran K. Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 24/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/06/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

revised in the impugned order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason of any lack of inquiry that the AO ought to have made in the given Kiran Kasturchand Shah facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly quash the order

Blp Vayu (Project-1) P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4895/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

taken by the assessee without any meaningful inquiry. The ld. DR thus supported the action of the Pr.CIT and submitted that such blatant lack of inquiry has resulted in an erroneous order causing grave prejudice to the Revenue. It was submitted that the action of the Pr.CIT is covered