← 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

Ambo Agro Products Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 676/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

that of an independent/impartial adjudicator, the CIT’s supervisory jurisdiction is attracted because the order of the AO would be erroneous for lack of inquiry, that is if he does not investigate or it would be erroneous for failure of AO to adjudicate as an independent/impartial adjudicator which means that ... natural justice, or there is bias or arbitrariness etc. then also the order of AO would be erroneous. When we say that lack of inquiry makes an AO’s order erroneous, one has to keep in mind the difference between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. Lack of inquiry makes

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR
Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

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

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)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 ITAT is reproduced below:- "28.1 Ld. Special counsel has rightly pointed out that ... expression, 'inquiry1, '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 the various decisions

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1071/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer, after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. [Para 9] • There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the relevant material. In such an eventuality no addition

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1070/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer, after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. [Para 9] • There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the relevant material. In such an eventuality no addition

Reliance Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1069/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer, after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. [Para 9] • There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the relevant material. In such an eventuality no addition

ACIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Reliance Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4946/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Dr.P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumnar
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

falls in the latter category. Here the Assessing Officer, after noting the facts, merely rejected the same. [Para 9] • There was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the relevant material. In such an eventuality no addition

M/S. Airads Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4676/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR
Section 68

Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).On appeal High Court held that, there was a clear lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer once the assessee had furnished all the relevant material. In such an eventuality no addition can be made under

Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2748/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Reliance Corporate It Park Ltd., बनधम/ Principal Commissioner Of Maker Tower E, 7Th Floor, Income Tax-6, Vs. A Wing- Cuff Parade Mumbai- 612, Aayakar Bhavan, 400005 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aabcd7169H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से/Appellant By : Shri Arvind Sonde प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 3.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 20.3.2015, Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -3, Mumbai Under Section 263, Setting Aside The Order Of The Assessing Officer Dated 20.3.2013 For Passing It Afresh. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Ground No.1 (I) The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 3, (Hereinafter Referred To As Cit) Erred In Passing The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act, By Holding That The Assessment Order Passed By The Oy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -3(3), Mumbai (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

return of income. 7. Before us, Ld. Counsel Shri Arvind Sonde, submitted that, first of all, it is not a case of lack of inquiry or partial inquiry, because precisely on the same issue, a query was raised by the Ld.AO during the course of the assessment proceedings ... Lessor and the AO has erroneously allowed such claim of depreciation. However, he has not categorically specified as to what has been the lack of inquiry or non-application of mind by the AO at the time of assessment. He has not highlighted as to what kind of inquiry should

Axcel Global Services, Mumbai vs. CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Cn Prasad & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal: (A.Y : 2009-10) M/S Axcel Global Services Vs. The Cit 13 Prabhat Palace, Behind Laxmi Bhawan Aayakar Bhavan Lajpatrai Road, Vile Parle West M.K.Marg Mumbai – 400 056 New Marine Lines Pan : Aaofa1550D Mumbai – 400 056 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AV SondeFor Respondent: Shri RP Meena
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessee’s case. He submits that in all these cases, there is a clear finding of fact that there is complete lack of inquiry or there was no inquiry at all. He submits that in all these cases, Assessing Officer failed to make any inquiries and therefore these cases

Smt. Reshma, Karnal vs. CIT, Karnal

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 241/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishireshma, Cit, W/O. Sh. Ravinder Singh, Near Karnal Vs. Doon Valley College, Jundia Gate, Rishi Nagar, Karnal Pan:Arqpr3918R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

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. In view of this we are of opinion that ld CIT is correct in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act holding

Shri Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2635/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Siingh & Shri Prashant Maharishiarun Kumar Aggarwal, Cit, B-1/74, Safdarjung Enclave, New Central-Ii, Room No. 341, Vs. Delhi Ara Centre, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn, Pam:Aaepa1259K New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. NK Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50

said to be a case of due application of mind. 28.1 Ld. Special counsel has rightly pointed out 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 ... 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. We find that ld. Commissioner, while considering this argument of assessee has observed that the representative of the assessee was assured that

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

said to be a case of due application of mind. 28.1 Ld. Special counsel has rightly pointed out 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 ... 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. We find that ld. Commissioner, while considering this argument of assessee has observed that the representative of the assessee was assured that

Shree D.K. Associates, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5659/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

shown any sale during the impugned assessment year as he was following the project completion method. Thus, this is not a case of lack of inquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer so far as following the project completion method by the assessee is concerned. 10.2 The second issue ... unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. This is not a case of lack of inquiry. 10.4 We have examined Explanation 2 to section 263 which is inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015. This explanation empowers the CIT from

Uday Kumar Vaish, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5700/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita No. 5700/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2009-10 Uday Kumar Vaish, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, Central-Ii, New Delhi-110005 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipv1716G Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kartar Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2014 Of Ld. Cit, Central-Ii, New Delhi U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kartar Singh, CIT DR
Section 263

laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is amply clear that in the cases where there is inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if inquiry and verification is conducted

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2316/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Prathma Bank, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase-Ii, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit, Moradabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

reiterated the submissions made before the authorities 8 Prathama Bank below and further submitted that the present case was not a case of lack of inquiry, as the AO conducted inquiry on all the points which were alleged in the show cause notice of the ld. CIT. It was pointed ... TIOL-2016 (ITAT Del) 11. It was also submitted that the present case was not at all a case of complete lack of inquiry. Therefore, the approach of ld. CIT in directing the AO to make fresh inquiry and re-examine the claim by raising doubts and suspicion, without

M/S Bhadra Education Trust, Davangere vs. CIT, Davangere

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 607/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III
Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

27/0/2013, by ITA.607/Bang/2014 Page - 6 accepting the income as NIL as declared by the appellant in the return. There was no lack of inquiry or inadequate inquiry by the learned assessing officer while passing the assessment order. The assessment order is not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue

M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2055/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., 202, New Mohan Puri, Meerut. Meerut Pan : Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kr. Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ankur Garg, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/03/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”) Revising The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/07/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That Notice U/S 263 Issued By Cit, Meerut Was Vague & Is Based Upon Incorrect Facts & Law & No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Being Heard Was Allowed. Hence, Entire Proceeding Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. That Ld. Cit, Meerut Has Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 49,46,196/- Claimed By The Assessee As Loss On Account Of Machinery, Which Is After Due Consideration Accepted By The Ld. A.O.. This Addition Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43B

however, no such enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer, and, therefore, the case of the assessee falls in the category of complete lack of Inquiry on the issue of loss from sale of machinery. In view of above, we are of considered opinion that the assessment order

Shri Bhupinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2500/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:A.Y. 2007-08 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 10/3, Old Rajinder Nagar, Ward-33(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaups 9406 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Jain Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 263Section 44ASection 68

invoking the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act." In any case, we are not confining our decision entirely on the issue of "lack of inquiry" or "inadequate inquiry". From the side of the assessee the learned AR, Mr. Tushar P. Hlmani has argued that this is not the case ... lack of inquiry by A.O. and that if the AO had made inadequate inquiry then that should not be a ground to applying the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act. Nevertheless, we are on the issue that no inquiry at -all has been made

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Rose Advertising P. Ltd., Delhi

In the result this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2827/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2008-09 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) Cd 12, Vishaka Enclave New Delhi Pitampura New Delhi 110 088 Pan: Aaacr 1077 M Ay: 2008-09 Ito Ward 15(4) Vs. Rose Advertising P.Ltd. New Delhi Cd 12, Pitampura Vishakha Enclave Delhi 110 034 A.Y: 2009-10 Rose Advertising (P) Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward 15(4) New Delhi New Delhi & Ay: 2009-10 Ito, Ward 15(4), N.Del. Vs. Rose Advtg. P.Ltd., N.Del.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)

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