TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1076
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant. 2. These appeals are filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the following common proposed question of law arising out of order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 1159/Ahd/2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y) 2019-20, ITA No. 1157/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18, ITA No. 1158/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 and ITA No. 1160/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2020-12: "(a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned ITAT has erred in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to examine the incriminating material found pertaining to assessee an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the registered document, while Rs. 43.32 crore represented alleged on-money, substantially received in cash and assessee's share in such on-money was computed at Rs. 29.64 crore. 7. The seized and impounded documents also reflected dealings in Transferable Development Rights (TDRs), involving the assessee and the group, including receipts of substantial sum in cash. The survey and cross-inquiries initiated in the cases of third parties, including Shri Suresh Thakkar, further brought out references to transactions with Narendra Patel of Sun Builders, Malaybhai Multani, Manoj Vadodaria and others. 8. Notices under Section 133(6) of the Act were issued to which assessee responded stating that the land transactions had not materialize....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 crore in AY 2019-20. 12. The PCIT, therefore, set aside the assessment for fresh examination on all these three grounds. 13. Being aggrieved by the orders of the PCIT, the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee on assumption of the revisionary jurisdiction by the PCIT, as well as on merits of the case, which was pleaded by the assessee during the course of original assessment in respect of all three issues, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that there was no lack of enquiry by the assessing officer. However, there may be lack of adequate enquiry, but adoption of one possible view by the Assessing Officer would not result into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....merely because the Commissioner holds another opinion. The same principle has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1, SC), and more recently by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Asiatic Bearing Co. (Tax Appeal No. 331 of 2024, judgment dated 04.03.2025). 8.3 Applying this distinction to the facts before us, it is evident that the present case falls not in the category of "lack of enquiry" but in the category of "enquiry made, and view taken." The assessment records demonstrate that the AO issued detailed notices u/s. 142(1), confronted the assessee with seized documents and statements, elicited explanations, and placed reliance on such replies. Thereafter, the A....