“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

Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli vs. PCIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CTK/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack24 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Abhimanyu Sahu, Buxipalli, Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Gopalpur On Sea. Gopalpur On Sea. Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aokps 4011 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.N.Dave, Ca P.N.Dave, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 24 /0 03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 24 /0 /03/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act 263 Of The Act Of The Ld Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Dated Dated 10.3.2021 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/ V/F/Rev5/2020-21/1031385941(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri P.N.Dave, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Pr. Cit(Osd) Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri P.N.Dave, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 263

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We concur with the submissions of Ld. CIT-DR that it was a case of lack of inquiry and there was no application of mind by AO on the issues which formed subject matter of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263. Therefore

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

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 ... merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of “lack of inquiry” that such a course of action would be open.” 22. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., (203 ITR 108) held as under: “…..From

Ruchi Jain, M/S Darsh Marketing, Ratlam vs. PCIT-1, Indore

ITA 76/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

this regard. 7.2 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 the Commissioner to pass orders under section

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

other spheres of human activity. 16 | P a g e 4. 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 was held 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

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Sunbeam Auto Ltd”, 332 ITR 167 (Del.) Where in it was 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”. 15. On similar facts, the coordinate Bench has allowed the appeal in I.T.A. No.75/Asr/2022 vide order dated 15/9/2022 in the case

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

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". 12. In this case, on perusal of facts available on record, we find that four issues questioned by the PCIT

Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Jalandhar vs. Prinicpal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 71/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR

Section 263

Sunbeam Auto Ltd”, 332 ITR 167 (Del.) Where in it was 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”. 14. On similar facts, the coordinate Bench has allowed the appeal in I.T.A. No.75/Asr/2022 vide order dated 15/9/2022 in the case

Vishal Aggarwal, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

ITA 803/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 803/Del/2022, A.Y. 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17Section 2(47)(v)Section 263Section 53A

book and thus in the light of reply and relevant document being examined by the Ld. AO, there is no question of any lack of inquiry. It was submitted that if assessing officer has taken one of the possible views. The assessment order cannot be interfered

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

this stage be relevant to visit the law in the matter, i.e., insofar as it relates to absence or lack of inquiry in the matter, which at heart is the charge by the revisionary authority in the instant case. Non-application of mind, as explained by the Apex Court

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

wherein it was held that “13. It is also trite that there is a fine though suhtle 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 10 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. 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

Shri Chandubhai Ramjibhai Kaqthiriya, Jasdan, Dist. Rajkot-364490 vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 70/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

this regard. 6.1 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. 70/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.). Where in it was 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. ” Reliance is also placed on the decision of jurisdictional lTAT Amritsar Bench, in the case of M/s Roshan lal Vegetable Products

M/S Good Earth Fertilizers Company P Ltd [Chemikas Speciality LLP], Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 2[2], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.424/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Good Earth Fertilizers- The Income Tax Officer, Co. P. Ltd., Corporate Ward-2(2), (Now Known As Chemikas Chennai. Specialty Llp), No.2, North Crescent Road, T. Nagar,Chennai-600 017. [Pan:Aasfg 6012 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

Shri Prashantsinh Ajitsinh Chauhan, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

there was failure on the part of the Assessing Officer to consider the instructions/directions of the higher authorities and there was evident lack of inquiry on the issue. Accordingly, ld. PCIT held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

Corus Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and conscious decision was taken after due application of mind. Accordingly, it is not a case of lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer. Secondly, as regards applicability of section 69C of the Act, we observe that section 69C applies in case of unexplained ... this regard. 5.2 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

Bhavani Industries, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Addl. Commr. Income Tax, Range-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 72/RJT/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Anadkat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 263Section 80I

section 80IA r.w.s. 80IC (7) of the Act have been complied with. Therefore, as per the PCIT not only was there lack of inquiry but there was complete absence of any scrutiny in respect of the eligibility of the new unit to claim deduction u/s. 80IC ... formed any opinion nor determined whether the new unit is eligible for deduction u/s. 80IC of the Act. Accordingly, since there is evident lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order was set aside with the following directions:- “17) As discussed above, the order is both erroneous

Nya International, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Nya International, Vs. The Pcit-1, Unit No.360, Plot No.239, Sez, Gidc Surat. Sachin, Suarat – 394230. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

proceedings and the revision proceedings are not interrelated to each other. 9. Therefore, ld PCIT noticed that this is not a case of lack of inquiry, but a case where order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made with respect to issues noted in revision ... while justifying the order of the Commissioner u/s 263(1) the Hon. Supreme Court opined that the CIT set aside the order for lack of inquiry and for non-application of mind. The Hon`ble Court also relied on the decision of Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi

Dineshchandra Narharishankar Upadhyay, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.120/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshchandra Narharishankar Principal Commissioner Of Upadhyay, 5/1203, Main Income-Tax-1, Room No. 123, Vs. Road, Haripura, Surat-395003 Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpu 1094 J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ravinder Sindhu, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

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 Assessing Officer ought to have made in the given facts and circumstances of the case. We accordingly quash the order passed by the Ld.PCIT