← 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

Shobha Ramchandra Chaudhari, Yawal vs. Principle Commissioner of Income-Tax - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 176/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The A.O The Assessee Had Filed Copies Of 7/12 Extracts, Bank Account Details & Pages Of Diary, Where The Assessee Had Noted The Details Of Transactions Regarding Agricultural Income.

For Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena (through physical)
Section 263

from the case where the A.O has conducted inquiry but the findings were erroneous. In the present facts it‟s a case of lack of inquiry by A.Y. 206-17 the A.O and not inadequate inquiry. 14. In view of the aforestated examination of facts and circumstances and judicial pronouncements

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)
Section 263Section 5

notice u/s 263 of Act hence could not be considered in the impugned order now. 10.1.1 It is not the case of complete/total lack of inquiry: The 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

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)
Section 263Section 5

notice u/s 263 of Act hence could not be considered in the impugned order now. 10.1.1 It is not the case of complete/total lack of inquiry: The 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

Shri Anand Pandey, Rewa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/JAB/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur04 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Agrawal, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Maya Maheshwari, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263

legion. The argument advanced is completely inapplicable in the facts of the instant case, which we have found to be of one of lack of inquiry on the most fundamental aspects of the transaction under examination and, thus, observed an absence of any basis to the AO‟s findings

Shruti Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 39(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1809/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

transactions. It was submitted that a non-speaking order of the Assessing Officer by itself will not give arise to the presumption of lack of inquiry. The extent and manner of inquiry is in question which cannot be ordinarily dictated by the revisional Commissioner. 7. Ld. DR for the Revenue

Anusha Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 39(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1808/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

transactions. It was submitted that a non-speaking order of the Assessing Officer by itself will not give arise to the presumption of lack of inquiry. The extent and manner of inquiry is in question which cannot be ordinarily dictated by the revisional Commissioner. 7. Ld. DR for the Revenue

Aditya Gopal Export Private Limited, Chennai vs. Pr. Commr. Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedअपील सं./Ita No.132/Rjt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 M/S Aditya Gopal Exports Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, No.6/20, Rukmani Street, Jamnagar West Mambalam, Chennai-600033. (Tamilnadu) Pan: Aacca3014H

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Oza, CIT. D.R
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

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 7129/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Enrich Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-15, B-1643, Pocket 1, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Pan: Aaace0807C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Aggarwal, Ar & Ms Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, For Ay 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is One Of The Group Companies Of Kandhari Group & Is Engaged In The Business Of Preparation, Manufacturing, Packing & Sale Of Soft Drinks On The Basis Of Concentrate & Other Raw Material Procured From Coca Cola In The Capacity Of Bottler & Distributor Of Coca Cola Products In India. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.11.2015 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.14,81,76,850/-. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015 In The Case Of M.M Aggarwal Group Of Cases. The Case Of The Assessee Was Also Covered In The Search U/S 132(1) Of The It Act. During The Course Of Search Carried Out At Different Premises Of M.M. Aggarwal Group, Documents, Data Storage Devices, Etc. Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. 2.1. The A.O. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Noted That The Assessee Company Has Received Share Capital & Share Premium Of Rs.4,87,99,855/- Including Share Premium Of Rs.4,61,62,025/- On Account Of Issue Of 263783 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- Each At A Premium Of Rs.175/-.

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(1)

fall in the second category and are more in line with 26 facts of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra). There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer once the assessee had furnished all the material which we have already referred to above. In such

Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth Karmchari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nagpur

The appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 222/NAG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 222/Nag/2018 आयकर धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth Karmchari Sahakari Path Sanstha Akola. (Maharashtra) Pan : Aaaad 3455 D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri P.K. Dewani Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nagpur [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 31/03/2018 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Dived Out Of Regular Assessment Order Dt. 10/08/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-1, Akola [For Shot “Ao”], The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Shri P.K. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80P

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

Kavita Jayeshkumar Kotak, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nupur Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Madhu, CIT-D.R
Section 10(38)Section 114Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

this regard. 9.2 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

Karnika Fuels & Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 439/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Karnika Fuels & Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Kolkata Commodities Pvt. Ltd. C/O Rsvpc Aaykar Bhawan & Company, 41 A, A.J.C Bose Vs. P-7 Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata-700 Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Fl., 069. Kolkata-700 017. Pan: Aacck8368C (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, FCA (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manish Kanojia, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 263

held dismissing the appeal “that the present case would not be one of, “lack “that the present case would not be one of, “lack of inquiry” even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that of inquiry” even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that

Pravinbhai Kanubhai Desai, Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 692/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Suchitra Kambleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 692/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 Pravinbhai Kanubhai Desai, Principal Commissioner Of 64, Prernapark Society, Vs. Income Tax-6, Nr. Gor Nakuva, Ahmedabad. Maninagar, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, C.I.T D.R
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

Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

then how it can be said or found out whether any prejudice in fact has been caused to revenue or not due to lack of inquiry on the part of the AO. If no loss of revenue is caused, the result remains the same even after conducting 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 18 Shri Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur

Narendra Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 7, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

thereafter the order was passed by AO. He submitted that the case of the assessee is not that of non inquiry or lack of inquiry by AO. He therefore submitted that the ratio of the aforesaid decision and other decisions relied upon by PCIT are not applicable to the facts ... legal principle. We also find that PCIT has observed that the present case was a case where it was a clear case of lack of inquiry. It is a settled law that the power of revision can be exercised only where no inquiry as required under the law is done

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

being satisfied with assessee's explanation, he accepted same, it could not be said to be a case of lack of inquiry. Similar view has been held in various other decisions relied on by the assessee in the case law compilation. 39. We further find the PCIT, in the instant

Britannia Industries Ltd, Bangalore vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it has been held dismissing the appeal “that the present case would not be one of, “lack of inquiry” even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal 19. AY 2016-17 Britannia Industries Ltd. found that complete details were filed before

Sh. Daljit Singh Bassi, Ranjit Nagar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 56/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 56/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54F

enquiry the Ld. AO failed to carry out. 1.3. The Worthy Pr. CIT failed to appreciate that inadequate inquiry does not amount to lack of inquiry so as to assume valid jurisdiction u/s 263. 1.4. The Worthy Pr. CIT, vide Para 7.1 of her order, has erred in holding that ... wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’ and further if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders

Tarun Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 144/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’ and further if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders ... this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court went on to observe that in case where there is in-adequate inquiry but no lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous and that this can happen only if an inquiry

M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.., Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 143/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.143/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit, बनाम 18-A, 2Nd Floor, (Central) North Avenue Road, Ludhiana West Punjab Bagh, New Delhi

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’ and further if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders ... this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court went on to observe that in case where there is in-adequate inquiry but no lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous and that this can happen only if an inquiry

Rajni Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 142/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between ‘lack of inquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’ and further if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders ... this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court went on to observe that in case where there is in-adequate inquiry but no lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous and that this can happen only if an inquiry