← 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

Smt Anupama Asswa, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

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

S N Tradelink Private Limited, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.77/Srt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) S. N. Tradelink Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3010-3011 Momai Complex, Income Tax-1, Room No. 114, 1St Kadodra Road, Umarvada, Surat – Vs. Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, 395010. Majura Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aakcs0060R

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 69C

Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (227 CTR 133) drew the thin line of difference between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry" and held that in the case of inadequate inquiry there cannot be 263 order. Therefore, without prejudice, even it is held that ... finding fault with the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue on account of lack of inquiry has to fail. Therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Ld. PCIT

Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 435/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Court Hearing) Dineshbhai Jivanbhai Sanspara The Principal Commissioner Of Income 1117,F-Tower, Green Avenue, Tax-1, Room No.123, Aayakar Vs. Union Park Gali Ghod Dod Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Road, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adaps 6038 H अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""थ" / Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 54

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

Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Tilak Bhawan, Harda vs. PCIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohal Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Harda Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Adypa 9036 B Assesseeby Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

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

Shabana Bee, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

ITA 19/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shrib.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Shabana Bee, Pcit-1, 786, Vishwas Indore बनाम/ Nagarbanzari, Vs. Pithampur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Asfpb 7940 R Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2023

Section 142(1)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

Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

Accordingly, the ground raised are sustained. The impugned order of ld. Revisional Authority is set aside. The appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1089/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1089/Del/2022, A.Y. 2017-18

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

queries including one referred above and available at page no. 16 of paper book, then it cannot be said that there was any lack of inquiry on the part of Ld. AO. 9. Furthermore, at page no. 10 of the paper book, there is reply submitted to Ld. Revisional Authority ... account of assessee. Even after having these facts before it in a very summarily manner, Ld. Revisional Authority preferred to observe lack of inquiry on the part of Ld. AO where directing AO to re examine further and verify the issue. 11. The Bench is of considered opinion that without

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

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

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

order itself, the Assessing Officer mentioned that he has examined the issue u/s80IB of the Act. Therefore it is not a case of lack of inquiry and Assessing Officer has examined the issue and came to the right conclusion. Therefore, the order passed by Ld.PCIT on the issue which ... 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

Monika Mondal, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 198/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations ... 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

Reuters Ltd vs. Dy.Director of It(It)-2(1)

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 4415/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2023AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Refinitiv Limited Dy. Dit(International Taxation)-2(1) (Formerly Known As Reuters Limited) Mumbai C/O. Rajeshree Sabnavis & Associates 704, The Summit Business Bay, Vs. Off. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala/Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

plausible view and has arrived at the said decision. There is no question 8 Refinitiv Limited vs. Dy. DIT(International Taxation) of lack of inquiry or even inadequate inquiry in the present case. As there are two views possible and that the AO has considered one view does not make

M/S. Jcl Infra Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. Pr. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed ex- parte

ITA 814/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

maintained by you on 29.04.20I5 at 03:00 P.M.” I.T.A No.814/Del/2017 3 3. Thus, the Pr.CIT raised wide ranging discrepancies and lack of inquiry on several aspects of the assessment as per the show cause notice. In response, the assessee filed certain submissions and contended that the relevant details

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

stated that the AO has not done proper and detailed inquiry, verification and examination which was necessary and there is lack of inquiry. 2.4 After going through the assessment details, replies, written submission, paper book filed by the assesse and arguments of the ld. DR , we found that

Shri Khalid Aman, Bhopal vs. The PCIT-2, Bhopal

ITA 225/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Suchitra Kamble & Shrib.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Khalid Aman, Pr. Cit-2 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aarpa 4443 L Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.01.2023

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

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

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

C.I.T. vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) held 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 ... 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." ITA Nos. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 Teleperformance Global Services, Mumbai. 20.1.20 In light of the above discussion and facts of the case, it is submitted

Mirum Digital Private Limited Ghatkopar West, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-6

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1489/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmirum Digital Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 101A/101Ai, Raheja Plaza 1, A-Wing, 1St Floor, Ghatkopar (West), 35, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aancs0273K ...... Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit-6, Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

where there is failure to make proper or full verification or inquiry. In the first category of cases, where there is complete lack of inquiry, the matter is settled by the Hon. Supreme Court Rampyari Devi Sarogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal

Abhijit Arun Modi, Solapur 413307, Maharashtra vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT 6, Pune

ITA 532/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.532/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 Abhijit Arun Modi, Mahavir Autolines, Pandharpur Sangli Road, Sangola. Pan : Astpm7598Q . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Principle Cit-6, Pune. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Deepak S. Sasar Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Revisionary Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6, Pune [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 27/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Holding The Assessment Order Dt. 27/03/2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By The Ito, Ward-1, Pandharpur [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2016-17 As Erroneous & Prejudice To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. SasarFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

such test are; ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 8 Shri Abhijit Arun Modi ITA No.532/PUN/2021 AY: 2016-17 a. Lack of inquiry or insufficient inquiry will suffice the requirement as to order being erroneous. b. Where the order is passed without application of mind, will fall under the category

Wealthy Millennium Investment & Trading P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appea

ITA 1207/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Wealthy Millennium Investment Pr. Cit-1 & Trading Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 330, 3Rd Floor, 520, Maker V, Jamnalal Bajaj Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Marg, Nariman Point, Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400021. Pan No. Aaacw 3434 F Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 28/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Ms. Shruti Agarwal, AR
Section 14ASection 263

thereafter chose to not make , and thereafter chose to not make any addition. Therefore, it is not a case of "lack of inquiry' any addition. Therefore, it is not a case of "lack of inquiry' any addition. Therefore, it is not a case of "lack of inquiry

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

laws would reach after due appreciation of such material. If this component is missing, it will always be a case of lack of inquiry and not inadequate inquiry. The relevant portion of the order of Hon'ble IT AT is reproduced below:- "28.1 Ld. Special counsel has rightly pointed ... that the expression, 'inquiry, 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry', have not been defined and, therefore, when the action of the AO would be suggestive of lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry, will depend upon the facts obtaining in a particular case. What emerges as a broad principle from

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 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. An assessment order made by the Income Tax Officer cannot branded as erroneous by the Commissioner

Shashikala Gupta, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Shashikala Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 10(1) Pan:Aaspg1838N Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Darshan Jakharia, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.3.2022 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2017-18. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 26.07.2017 For A.Y 2017-18 Admitting Income From House Property & Other Sources At Rs.3,66,720/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Issues On Which The Selection Was Made Was “Large Value Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period As Compared To Returned Income”. Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 9.8.2018 Was Issued & Served Electronically On The Assessee As Well As Page 1 Of 15

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Jakharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 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. An assessment order made by the Income Tax Officer cannot branded as erroneous by the Page

Manthena Kanaka Durga Prasada Raju, Bhimavaram vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.79/Viz/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Manthena Kanaka Durga Prasada Raju Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of Flat No.5, Raghavendra Towers Income Tax Srirampuram Circle-I Bhimavaram Rajamundry [Pan : Afspm2499A]

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.N.Murthy Naik, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

have appreciated that the assessing officer initiated enquiries in respect of the above issue and as such it is not a case of ‘lack of inquiry’ to enable the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to invoke the provisions of S.263. 5. Any other ground that may be urged