JUDGMENT This appeal under section 260A of Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), challenges order dated July 31, 2012, passed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). assessment year involved is assessment year 2006-07 (since reported in Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2012] 19 ITR (Trib) 746 (Mumbai)). Revenue has raised following questions of law for our consideration: "(1) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal is justified in quashing order under section 263 of Income- tax Act, 1961, as, undoubtedly, expenditure of Rs. 2.94 crores was incurred to create brand'Nirvana-an intangible asset? (2) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal erred in taking view that expenditure incurred by assessee did not result in any kind of addition or augmentation of any profit- making asset, when assessee-company itself has admitted that expenditure was incurred for creation of brand'Nirvana' that is intangible asset? (3) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal erred in coming to finding that said expenditure was related to conduct of business whereas expenditure in question related to building up of brand which was of permanent character and not of routine revenue nature?" Questions Nos. 2 and 3 framed by Revenue are mere facets of issue raised in question No. 1. respondent-assessee is in business of manufacturing and export of jewellery. During course of assessment proceedings, respondentassessee had claimed deduction under head "miscellaneous expenses" aggregate sum of Rs. 2.94 crores. This was essentially to create brand "Nirvana". assessee submitted details and nature of expenditure and pointed out that expenses are revenue in nature, being in nature of advertisement expenses, training fees, legal and professional fees, exhibition expenses, product supply expenditure, etc. Besides, it was pointed out that amount of Rs. 1.96 crores was treated as deferred revenue expenditure and was written off over period of three years, i.e., assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. During assessment proceedings specific queries were raised with regard to this expenditure and same was responded to by respondent-assessee. Assessing Officer in assessment order dated December 24, 2008, held that amount of Rs. 17.98 lakhs out of above miscellaneous expenses of Rs. 2.94 crores is of capital nature and disallowed same by order passed under section 143(3) of Act. Commissioner of Income-tax issued show-cause notice under section 263 of Act to respondent seeking to revise assessment order dated December 24, 2008. This is on ground that entire miscellaneous expenditure of Rs. 2.94 crores for creation of brand "Nirvana" was capital expenditure. respondent-assessee pointed out to above facts as transpired before Assessing Officer. However, Commissioner of Income- tax rejected petitioner's submissions and held that Assessing Officer had erred in allowing expenditure incurred as miscellaneous expenses for creation of brand "Nirvana" as revenue expenditure. In appeal before Tribunal, respondent-assessee pointed out that letters dated August 8, 2008, and November 24, 2008, were issued by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings seeking details in respect of expenditure incurred for building brand Nirvana. same was responded to by respondent-assessee submitting entire details. On examining details submitted, Assessing Officer held that amount of Rs. 17.98 lakhs out of Rs. 2.94 crores alone was on account of capital expenditure. Tribunal in impugned order while allowing assessee's appeal held that inquiry with regard to expenditure incurred on brand building exercise was carried by Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. On being satisfied that major portion of it was not capital expenditure, only disallowed sum of Rs. 17.98 lakhs as capital expenditure. Tribunal, while relying on judgment of Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), held that it is settled principle of law that if after examining details Assessing Officer has taken view, which is possible view then it cannot be treated that order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue. grievance of Revenue is that assessment order dated December 24, 2008, does not reflect due consideration of respondent's claim that amount of Rs. 2.94 crores (less Rs. 17.98 lakhs which has been considered) was not to be treated as capital in nature. In view of above, it is submitted that impugned order is unsustainable. We find that impugned order of Tribunal does record fact that specific queries were made during assessment proceedings with regard to details of expenditure claimed under head "miscellaneous expenses" aggregating to Rs. 2.94 crores. respondent-assessee had responded to same and on consideration of response of respondent-assessee, Assessing Officer held that of amount of Rs. 17.98 lakhs incurred on account of repairs and maintenance out of Rs. 2.94 crores is capital expenditure. This itself would be indication of application of mind by Assessing Officer while passing impugned order. fact that assessment order itself does not contain any discussion with regard to balance amount of expenditure of Rs. 1.76 crores, i.e., Rs. 2.94 crores less Rs. 17.98 lakhs claimed as revenue expenditure would not by itself indicate non-application of mind to this issue by Assessing Officer in view of specific queries made during assessment proceedings and respondent-assessee's response to it. In fact this court in case of Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) has held that if query is raised during assessment proceedings and responded to by assessee, mere fact that it is not dealt with in assessment order would not lead to conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. Moreover, from nature of expenditure as explained by petitioner to Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings itself indicates that view that same were in realm of revenue expenditure, is possible view. Therefore, we find no fault in impugned order having followed binding decision of Supreme Court in case of Max India Ltd. (supra), while allowing appeal before it. Accordingly, no substantial question of law arise for consideration. Thus, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd