https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768365 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against revision order u/s 263. The tribunal found that AO had made due enquiries as evidenced by documents and assessee's replies in the Paper Book. Relying on Sunbeam Auto and Anil Kumar Sharma cases, the tribunal distinguished between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry," holding that any enquiry, even if inadequate, does not justify revision u/s 263. The tribunal noted that Explanation 2 to Section 263 inserted by Finance Act 2015 was not applicable to AY 2015-16, and concluded the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue interest. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2025 08:23:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768365 ITAT Delhi allowed the assessee's appeal against revision order u/s 263. The tribunal found that AO had made due enquiries as evidenced by documents and assessee's replies in the Paper Book. Relying on Sunbeam Auto and Anil Kumar Sharma cases, the tribunal distinguished between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry," holding that any enquiry, even if inadequate, does not justify revision u/s 263. The tribunal noted that Explanation 2 to Section 263 inserted by Finance Act 2015 was not applicable to AY 2015-16, and concluded the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue interest. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768365