← 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

Kishor Veljibhai Fofandi, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 326/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

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 ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 mind the difference

Deepmala Marine Exports, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 324/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

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 ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 mind the difference

Chunilal Govind Vanik, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 323/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

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 ITA No. 312, 322 to 329/Rjt/2024 ITA No. 331 & 335 & 371/Rjt/2024 mind the difference

Bharatkumar Kalyanjibhai Bhindi, Junagadh vs. PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 312/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

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 Page 32 mind the difference between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. The Lack

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

particular way merely because the Ld. PCIT may be having a different opinion in the matter. As far as the allegation of lack of inquiry is concerned, record shows that the AO had issued detailed query letter and the assessee had partly responded to such queries ... 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

Mr Manish Jagdish Bajaj, Mumbai vs. PCIT-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2758/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mr. Manish Jagdish Bajaj Pcit-41, Mumbai Flat No. 605,606, 6Th Floor, Farm Room No. 541, Kautilya Manor Chs Adarsh Colony, Marve Vs. Bhava, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Road, Malad (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400064 Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 Pan No. Aghpb 6661 P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R A Dhyani, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

income; and secondly, that the claim was erroneously accepted without proper verification. erroneously accepted without proper verification. 5.1 Insofar as the allegation of lack of inquiry by the Assessing Insofar as the allegation of lack of inquiry by the Assessing Insofar as the allegation of lack of inquiry

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

settled principle that there is a distinction between "lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a Page - 15 - of 26 ITA No.761 /Chny/2025 course of action under section 263 would be open. In this regard, we may refer the following ... 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 Page - 19 - of 26 ITA No.761 /Chny/2025 inadequate that would not by itself give occasion

Siddharth Colorchem Private Limited, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

ITA 2903/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Siddharth Colorchem Pvt. Ltd., Dcit 3(3)(1), 121 Atanta, Nariman Point, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabcs 7709 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prateek Jain Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek JainFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

Officer had duly applied his mind to the issue and conducted inquiries before accepting the claim. It was, therefore, not a case of lack of inquiry or non-application of mind, which alone could justify the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. In further support

Livlong Insurance Brokers Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -4, Mumbai

ITA 2864/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Pritesh Mehta,ARFor Respondent: \nShri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

ncase of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Hon'ble\nHigh Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and\ninadequate inquiry. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi\nHigh Court are worth noting:\n\"12. We have considered the rival submissions ... revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee\nis right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between \"lack\nof inquiry\" and \"inadequate inquiry\". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate,\nthat would not by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders\nunder section

Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2)(Previously ITO, Ward-1, Anand), Vadodara

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

ITA 556/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Manan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

ascertain that the said bank account was in fact opened and operated by the assessee himself. In our view, there was an evident lack of inquiry by the concerned tax authorities and the entire onus was shifted on the assessee, who at that relevant time had just attained majority ... there is nothing on record to establish that any inquiry was conducted by the Police Department”. We are of the considered view, that lack of inquiry by the Police Department cannot be the basis for confirming such a huge amount in the hands of the assessee, especially keeping into light

Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2)(Previously ITO, Ward-1, Anand), Vadodara

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

ITA 555/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Manan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

ascertain that the said bank account was in fact opened and operated by the assessee himself. In our view, there was an evident lack of inquiry by the concerned tax authorities and the entire onus was shifted on the assessee, who at that relevant time had just attained majority ... there is nothing on record to establish that any inquiry was conducted by the Police Department”. We are of the considered view, that lack of inquiry by the Police Department cannot be the basis for confirming such a huge amount in the hands of the assessee, especially keeping into light

Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(2), Vadodara

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

ITA 554/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Manan Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR & Shri Hargovind
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69A

ascertain that the said bank account was in fact opened and operated by the assessee himself. In our view, there was an evident lack of inquiry by the concerned tax authorities and the entire onus was shifted on the assessee, who at that relevant time had just attained majority ... there is nothing on record to establish that any inquiry was conducted by the Police Department”. We are of the considered view, that lack of inquiry by the Police Department cannot be the basis for confirming such a huge amount in the hands of the assessee, especially keeping into light

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

inquiry and detailed examination of each and\nevery aspects of the assessee's case, therefore, it cannot be said that there is a lack of inquiry on\nthe part of the Ld. assessing officer. Your Honour will further appreciate that the main reasons\nand heads of expenses for which your ... follows:\n\"Learned counsel for the assessee is right in his submission that one has to keep in mind the\ndistinction between \"lack of inquiry\" and inadequate inquiry\". If there was any inquiry, even\ninadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under\nSection

Paras Rameshchandra Doshi, Rajkot vs. The PCIT - 1, Rajkot

ITA 280/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

this avery issue has been examined by the Assessing Officer. Hence the action u/s. 263 is unwarranted, since, there is no question of lack of inquiry/ no adequate inquiry by the Assessing Officer. The Ld. AR further relied on the under- mentioned following judgement: • Clix Finance India

Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, Na vs. Ari, Vs.the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 122/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A.L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical He Aring) Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, The Pr. Cit – 1, Vs. 2622, Sarvoday Park, Khundh Rajkot Khundh, Chikhli, Navsari - 396521 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp0527F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 23/07/2024 & Refix For Clarification On 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

mind. The 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 ... order should have been written more elaborately. Therefore, in the assessee`s case, it cannot be said that it is a case of 'lack of inquiry'. In view of the facts of the case and judicial pronouncements relied upon, it is well established that the impugned order passed

Aamir Khan Production Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 2612/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

ncase of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto 227 CTR 113 wherein the Hon'ble\nHigh Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry\nand inadequate inquiry. The following observations of the Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court are worth noting:\n\"12. We have considered the rival submissions ... revenue expenditure. Learned counsel for the assessee is right in\nhis submission that one has to keep in mind the distinction between \"lack of inquiry\" and\n\"inadequate inquiry\". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself,\ngive occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 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

Actionware India Private Limited, Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.317/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2014-15 Actionware India Pvt. Ltd. The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम 316, Sagar Arcade Rajkot. Gandal Road Vs. Opp: Union Bank Of India Rajkot 360 002 (Gujarat) Pan : Aacck 3445 Q (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 263Section 68

assessee. To demonstrate, to be a genuine transaction, the TDS was deducted on interest, therefore, it is a case of completely lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer. The ld.DR, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the ld.Pr.CIT requires to the upheld. 12. We have heard ... assessee and to demonstrate, to be a genuine transaction, the TDS was deducted on interest, therefore, it is a case of completely lack of inquiry on the part of the assessing officer.We do not agree with the above arguments advanced by the ld. DR for the revenue.The Supreme Court

Sparten Granito Pvt. Ltd, Morvi vs. PCIT Rajkot-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 300/RJT/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.300/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sparten Granito P. Ltd. Pr.Commissioner Of बनाम S.No.277/ B/H. Siyaram Granito Incometax-1 Jetpur Road, Rangpar Vs. Rajkot. Morbi. Pan : Aaxcs 7650 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-Ar राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 03/03/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/06/2025 Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Has Challenged The Correctness Of The Order Dated 31.03.2024, Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (In Short “Ld Pcit”) Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'), For The Assessment Year 2018-19.Grievances Raised By The Assessee, Which, Being Interconnected, Will Be Taken Up Together, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Adv-ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

points for which case was selected for scrutiny as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue failed to appreciate clear difference between "Lack of inquiry" and "Inadequate inquiry." 4. Ld. Pr. CIT erred in law and on facts invoking revisional jurisdiction just because of assessing officer not elaborating

Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., Dhanbad vs. PCIT, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

there was application of mind before allowing the expenditure in question as revenue expenditure. One has to keep in mind the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry' If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under ... because he 7 ITA 27/Ran/2024 Devprabha Construction P Ltd. Vs PCIT has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of 'lack of Inquiry' that such a course of action would be open. [Para 12] (Copy of the order is attached at Page 32-40. d) That moreover