← 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

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS

M/S.Mallelli Industries P. Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 573/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.WarrierFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

given. 6.1 As rightly held by the CIT, there was no inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer before the revised return was accepted. Lack of inquiry, non-examination of relevant facts / materials, non-application of mind by the A.O. would result in an order being erroneous and prejudicial ... interest of the revenue and such orders would be amenable for revision u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. The following judicial pronouncements have held, lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

M/S. Gayatri Enterprise, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 825/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Aparna M. Agarwal, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

dated 28.11.2013 is sought to be set aside by the Pr.CIT for fresh assessment on the ground of lack of inquiry into certain vital aspects. 3. Briefly stated, the assessee, a partnership firm, is engaged in the business of construction. The return of income of the assessee ... loosing its lawful share of taxes owing to an apparently erroneous order passed by the AO. The learned DR contended that owing to lack of inquiry on the vital aspect of cost of purchase declared vis-à-vis notified jantri rate (as revealed from the stamp duty paid

M/S. Third Eye Enterprise, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1214/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1214/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

placed before the AO nor asked for. Thus, the order of the AO under s.143(3) of the Act clearly suffers from lack of inquiry and application of mind. The AO has clearly failed to discharge its quasi-judicial functions while framing the assessment order. Such an assessment order

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

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

ITA 3376/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T-2 India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. Ce-05, First Floor, Import Building – Ii, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

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 ... merely because hp 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. In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner.” 22. Considering

Monika Gupta, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 21, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2859/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 263

Assessing Officer has found the expenses debited in the profit and loss account to be satisfactory, it cannot be said that there was lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer. The expenses were duly verified by the Assessing Officer and therefore invoking the provisions of section 263 for "re- verification ... order.” 8 I.T.As. No.2858 & 2859/DEL/2017 7. Before us, learned counsel submitted that, nowhere the ld. Pr.CIT has pointed out what is the lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s.143(3). Here, in this case, ld. Pr.CIT is trying to make

Monika Gupta, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 21, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2858/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 263

Assessing Officer has found the expenses debited in the profit and loss account to be satisfactory, it cannot be said that there was lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer. The expenses were duly verified by the Assessing Officer and therefore invoking the provisions of section 263 for "re- verification ... order.” 8 I.T.As. No.2858 & 2859/DEL/2017 7. Before us, learned counsel submitted that, nowhere the ld. Pr.CIT has pointed out what is the lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment u/s.143(3). Here, in this case, ld. Pr.CIT is trying to make

Shri Darshan Shivlal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1139/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 263

favour of assessee. Assessee also cited a case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del.): “There is a 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

Pooja Gupta, Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 19, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4057/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishipooja Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit, 82, Surya Niketan, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Ahgpa2193K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Shri Samar Bhandra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 133(6)Section 14Section 143Section 263

assessee the learned AO has not carried out any enquiry and merely believed on the documents submitted by the assessee. There is complete lack of inquiry with the perspective for which case is selected for scrutiny. The ld PCIT in his order has also given the issues on which

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. It was held that 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. It was further held that if the AO had called for explanation on the very item from the assessee and the assessee

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. It was held that 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. It was further held that if the AO had called for explanation on the very item from the assessee and the assessee

ITO, WD-1(1), Siliguri vs. M/S Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1041/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Siliguri..………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Cachar King Plantations Pvt. Ltd..……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent Situvita Tea Factory Bidhan Nagar Siliguri [Pan : Aabcc 0744 P] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 12Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 16Th , 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Siliguri, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27/05/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It E-Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 22/09/2012, Disclosing Total Business Income At Rs.3,71,534/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, On 30/03/2015, Making An Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,30,00,000/-, U/S 68 Of The Act. This Was Set Off Against Carried Forward Losses & Gross Total Balance Was Determined At –Nil- Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Cachar King are more in line with 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip Uk Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

ITA 1116/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR
Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

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. In Gabriel India Ltd. (supra), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner: "........From a reading

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

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 ... 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. In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): "... From

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5975/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Ito, Vs. Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ward-5(2), Ltd., New Delhi. 10, Local Shopping Centre, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Pan: Aaack3995P Co No.171/Del/2015 (Ita No.5975/Del/2014) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Kautilya Monetary Services Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 10, Local Shopping Centre, Ward-5(2), Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaack3995P

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

fall in the second category and are more in line with 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

Motiwala & Sons, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 17, New Delhi

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

ITA 2756/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raja Ram Sah, CIT- DR
Section 133ASection 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 under section ... 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. In Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), law on this aspect was discussed in the following manner (page 113): " . . . From

ITO, WD-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tritium Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 16/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 68

fall in the second category and are more in line with 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

Sahabuddin Quadiri, Murshidabad vs. DCIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

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

inquiry and detailed examination of each and every aspects of the assessee’s case, therefore, it cannot be said that there is a lack of inquiry on the part of the Ld. assessing officer. SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] 14. Shri Tulsiyan also argued that the order sheet ... assessing officer in detail during the assessment proceedings under section 143 (3) of the Act, therefore, there should not be any lack of inquiry or improper inquiry on the part of SAHABUDDIN QUADIRI [Assessment Year: 2010-11] the assessing officer, hence the order passed by the assessing officer is neither

ITO, WD-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodluck Merchants P Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(2), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Goodluck Merchants P. Ltd..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 10/4B, Elgin Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcb 2011 L]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

fall in the second category and are more in line with 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

Financial Inclusion Trust, New Delhi vs. DCIT(E), Circle- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1026/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2Section 263

prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The order of the Assessing Officer may be erroneous due to many reasons including lack of Inquiry by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances 4 of the case. In the order passed in compliance to the order under section