Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Small Wonder Industries Vs CIT-24 (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA NO.2464/Mum/2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 24/02/2017
Related Assessment Year : 2009-10
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

There is a distinction between “lack of enquiry” and “inadequate enquiry”. In the present case the Assessing Officer collected necessary details, examined the same and then framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in such a situation the decision from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del.)(supra), clearly comes to the rescue of the assessee . We are expected to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer had investigated/examined the issue and applied his mind towards the whole record made available by the assessee during assessment proceedings. Uncontrovertedly, necessary details/reply to the questionnaire were filed/produced by the assessee and the same were examined by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not a case of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer

ORDER

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member)

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19/02/20 13 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act), holding the original assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

2. During hearing of this appeal, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Prakash Jotwani, invited our attention to the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act by contending that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notice u/s 142 along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. The assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed various details called for and after considering the factual matrix, the assessment was framed. Our attention was invited to the various issues discussed/deliberated upon in the assessment order. The crux of the argument is that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore, the revision jurisdiction was wrongly invoked.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031