← 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

M/S Aadhar Associates, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-2, Bhopal

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 300/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Aadhar Associates Pr. Cit-1 76, Shanker Garden Near Bhopal Queen Mery School Vs. Ayodhya By Pass Road Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aavfa 7526 Q Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31.05.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee along with ledger cash book and bank statements are found to be acceptable. Thus, it is not a case of lack of inquiry on the part of the AO while the passing the assessment order. 6. The Pr. CIT has invoked the provision of section ... even the AO has not given the finding whether the assessee has adopted percentage completion method or not. Therefore, there is a complete lack of inquiry on the part of the AO while passing the impugned order. He has supported the impugned order of Pr. CIT passed

Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, Daman & Diu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.163/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Hamilton Houseware Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Plot No.49/50, Danydyog Industrial Estate, Piparia 396230, Dadra & Nagar Haveli. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd1683Q

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 80GSection 80I

Assessing Officer has discussed the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT in his order also, hence it cannot be said that there is lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer. 19. The judicial precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industries ... Assessing ITA 163/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Hamilton Housewares Pvt. Ltd. Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue, on account of lack of inquiry, has to fail. Based on these facts and circumstances, we quash the order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the ld PCIT under section

Manohar Lal Sarraf and Sons Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessee for claiming Long term Capital gain and he also forgot to consider that inadequate / insufficient inquiry does not amount to lack of inquiry so as to attract the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 5. That the Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in invoking the provisions

Smt. Meenaben Ketankumar Makim, Jamnagar vs. The Pr, CIT, Jamnagar

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

ITA 81/RJT/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

assessee. A.Y. 2015-16 5 Therefore, it is not a case of inadequate inquiry but a clear cut case of of inquiry. lack of inquiry or verification at the relevant time by the AO would constitute prejudice to the interest of revenue and would involve error of fact ... assessee was erroneous in as much as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore this is a case of absolute lack of inquiries by the AO and not a case of inadequate inquiries. Reliance is placed on the following case laws wherein it has been held that proceedings

Vision Enterprises, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Ahmednagar

ITA 192/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 192/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vision Enterprises, Hotel Sulai, Dhankawadi, Pune. Pan: Aajfv0168P . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay Garg Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; With The Following Grounds Of Appeal The Assessee Challenges The Revisionary Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -1, Pune [For Short ‘Pcit’] Dt. 22/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’] For Assessment Year [For Short ‘Ay’] 2015-16; “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Passing Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah & Shri Akshay GargFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 269TSection 271ESection 40

sought to be revised by the Ld. PCIT has both the characteristics or limbs as envisaged u/s 263 of the Act. As the lack of inquiry into three issues in question coupled non-application of mind in carrying out the assessment itself invites both the foregoing limbs, therefore we find

Sanjay Gupta, Panipat vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 587/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

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

M\S. Lexico Ceramics, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 1/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

this regard. 12. 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. M/s. Lexico Ceramics Vs. PCIT AY : 2015-16 5 The Hon’ble court held that where the AO has made inquiry prior ... 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 Commissioner to pass orders under section

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

Vikas Polymers reported in 341ITR 537has held as under: 13. It is also trite 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 ... 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 Commissioner to pass orders under Section

Mukesh Shah, Nagpur vs. PCIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assesse is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimukesh Shah Pr. Cit 202, Silver Palm Apartment Indore Rpds Road, Laxmi Nagar Vs. Nagpur

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

order by holding that the order passed by the AO is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for lack of inquiry on the issue of allowability of the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. 5. At the outset, we note that ... completely silent on the issue of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act which reveals that there is a complete lack of inquiry on the part of the AO on this issue. There is Page 4 of 5 Mukesh Shah Page 5 of 5 nothing coming out from

Ravi Agrawal, Indore vs. The PCIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniravi Agrawal Pr. Cit 101-102, Kanchan Vihar, Indore Vs. Niranjanpur, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aorpa 2161 B Assessee By None Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 19.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 263Section 54

dated 31st May 2017 is erroneous in so far as the prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on account of lack of inquiry on the part of the AO. Accordingly, assessment order was set aside and AO was asked to re-examine the issue of allowability of deduction ... conducted the necessary inquiry while passing assessment order and therefore, the order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous due to lack of inquiry on the part of the AO. He has further submitted that since there is an amendment in provision of section 54 by Finance Act 2014 w.e.f

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 227 CTR 133, wherein the issue of lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry was discussed at length and it was held that the jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be assumed in case of inadequate inquiry, conversely, jurisdiction ... assumed only in case of lack of inquiry. 30 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited 33. We further find that the Ld. CIT did not himself carry out any inquiry or investigation before implicating the veracity of share capital raised by the assessee. In this view

Vantage Leathers India Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-3(4), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 235/CHNY/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT)– Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50C

raised various queries and the same were also replied by the assessee, it could not be said that there was lack of inquiry. Accordingly, the revision was held to be unsustainable. This case law supports the case of the assessee. Therefore, on the given set of facts and circumstances

Kanaiya Readymade Stores, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.61/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kanaiya Readymade Stores, The Pcit-1, Surat. Vs. 3/199-200, Main Bazar, Opp. Laliya Lake, Olpad, Surat – 394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfk1700E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2023

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

Mahaveer Prasad Jain, Jaipur vs. Principal CIT-2, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Avadesh Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. 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 Commissioner to pass orders under ... section 263 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. [Para 12] CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 Bom “The AO has made enquiries . The assessee has given

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

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.’ 13 Dharmendra Mahta vs. PCIT

Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs. Pr CIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

than how it can be said or found out whether any prejudice in fact has been caused to revenue or not by lack of inquiry on the part of the AO. If no loss of revenue is caused and the result remains the same even after conduct the inquiry ... reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the inquiry and it is not a case of lack of inquiry but can be case of insufficient enquiry. Pr. CIT was not justified in passing the order u/s 263.” In the present case also

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

case of “CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd”, 332 ITR 167 (Del.) held as under: - “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 Commissioner to pass orders under ... section 263 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”. 11. In the above view, we hold that the impugned order passed by the PCIT is perverse to facts on record

7 Star Dreams, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.95/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) 7 Star Dreams, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. Block No.26, F.P. No.26, T.P.S. No. 66, Nr. Sweet Home Kosad, Surat – 394107. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabfz2575L

Section 144Section 263Section 68

issue raised by the Ld. PCIT in his revision order under section 263 of the Act. Therefore, it is not a case of lack of inquiry. However, we note that the issue raised by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act, has been thoroughly examined by the Assessing ... 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Raipur vs. Harsha Rice Mills Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 170/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

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." 8. "Whether on points of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a decision, thereby

Harsha Rice Mills Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 156/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

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." 8. "Whether on points of law and on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in giving a decision, thereby