Maya Gupta vs. CIT (ITAT Delhi)

In cases where there is inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if inquiry and verification is conducted by the CIT and he is able to establish and show the error and mistake made by the AO, making the order unsustainable in law. In some cases possibly though rarely, the CIT can also show and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn from facts on record per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the Assessing Officer had erroneously not undertaken the same. In this situation, the said finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further inquiry without a finding that the order is erroneous. The distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising judgment under Section 263 of the Act and in absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the exercise of jurisdiction under said section is not sustainable. The finding that the order is erroneous is the condition or requirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In such matters, to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean that the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question. In the most of the cases of alleged inadequate investigation, it would be difficult to hold that the order of the AO, who had conducted inquiries and had acted as an investigator is erroneous without CIT conducting verification/inquiry. It was also laid down that the CIT can direct reconsideration of assessment on this ground but only when the order is erroneous and an order of remit cannot be passed by the CIT to ask the AO to decide whether the order was erroneous and such order is not permissible under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. The jurisdictional pre-condition for invoking section 263 of the Act is that the CIT must come to the conclusion that the order is erroneous and is unsustainable in law (ITO vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) followed).