JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. Ravindra Bhat J.-The Revenue is aggrieved by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's ("the ITAT") order allowing assessee's appeal for assessment year 2006-07. It contends that decision of Incometax Appellate Tribunal that section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"), was wrongly invoked in circumstances of case, is erroneous. assessee firm, at relevant time, carried on business of textiles and garments sale. Revenue surveyed its premises on December 15, 2006, under section 133A of Act. Discrepancies to tune of Rs. 1,00,05,388 in its accounts were found. Of that, Rs. 89,91,576 was in form of excess stocks and balance constituted excess cash. assessee surrendered this amount and incorporated them in books of account. final books produced during course of hearing for year ending March 31, 2006, disclosed that all these amounts were duly reflected. assessee had filed return claiming to be taxed for sum of Rs. 42,44,290. Scrutiny assessment was completed and Assessing Officer ("the AO") framed order of Rs. 44,01,300. Commissioner of Income-tax called for record and was of opinion that since surrendered amount had not been disclosed over and above normal income and surrendered stock was not accounted for properly, in addition to other existing discrepancies, matter required re- examination under section 263 of Act. Accordingly, notice was issued under that provision, which was resisted by assessee. Commissioner of Income-tax proceeded to finalise assessment and added considerable amounts and framed assessment at higher amount of Rs. 87,83,468. Commissioner of Income-tax was considerably influenced by fact that assessee had sold its stocks between period March 24, 2006, and March 30, 2006, at vastly discounted rates. assessee had urged that stock clearance sale, whereby discount up to 60 per cent. was offered, was resorted to on account of ongoing sealing drive conducted by municipal authorities. Commissioner of Income-tax also took into consideration fact that stock which was initially valued at Rs. 17 lakhs was sold at Rs. 1,35,400, which was dubious. He, therefore, applied 20 per cent. gross profit rate on assessee's normal sales which worked out to Rs. 1,07,19,727 after giving some allowance for valuation of defective sales and actual amount claimed, i.e., Rs. 1,37,400. This resulted in substantial additions. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, in its conclusions, found in favour of assessee and held that exercise of power under section 263 of Act in facts of present case was unwarranted. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's conclusions are extracted below: "6. We have heard rival contentions and perused material available on record. From documents filed by assessee, it clearly emerges that assessee incorporated entries of surrender in its books of account, prepared pre-survey, post-survey and final trading accounts and produced it before Assessing Officer during course of assessment proceedings. Assessing Officer asked for justification of reduced income. assessee attributed same to discounted sales offered by assessee after survey, in last one-and-half months of accounting year. Assessing Officer cross verified factum of holding of discounted sale which is evidenced by newspaper cutting and sale bill books all this is part of assessment record. Thus, issues about incorporation of discrepancies during course o f survey, books were examined. loss on account of discounted sales was cross verified. Thus, record shows that Assessing Officer was conscious of all these facts and called for various information. His satisfaction about assessee's explanation is manifest from fact that he did not make any addition in this behalf. assessment order is passed with approval of Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, which is accorded after verification of assessment record. hon'ble Delhi Court in case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) has clearly held that if application of mind by Assessing Officer emerges from assessment record, merely because while allowing claim some specific wording is not used in assessment order, it will not be occasion for Commissioner to hold assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue. Respectfully following hon'ble Delhi Court's decision in case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) we are of Delhi Court's decision in case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) we are of view that Assessing Officer's order does not suffer from any lack of inquiry of relevant issues and non-application of mind. We find no infirmity in assessment order in terms of being erroneous or prejudicial to interests of Revenue. 6.1. In view thereof, we quash order of Commissioner passed under section 263 of Act. 7. In result, assessee's appeal is allowed." Learned counsel urged that Income-tax Appellate Tribunal fell into error of law in holding that premise upon which jurisdiction could be exercised under section 263 did not exist. It was argued that Assessing Officer's order plainly accepted assessee's assertions of need to sell stocks at vastly depressed rates, even though such stocks had been purchased previously for considerably higher amounts. It was argued that reasoning of Assessing Officer was unsupportable, and in addition, there was prejudice to Revenue, which could be construed as erroneous within expression of section 263 of Act. Learned counsel for assessee urged that Assessing Officer had considered, in detail, explanations with respect to clearance sales as well as depressed consideration at which assessee was forced to sell stocks. In addition, he relied upon authority of this court ruling in CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). In present case, facts which emerge from previous discussion are that assessee's premises were subjected to survey on February 15, 2006. discrepancies noticed between its books of account, stocks and excess cash were surrendered by it. Revenue does not dispute that these were also reflected in books of account presented during course of assessment. two circumstances which considerably swayed and ultimately went into decision of Commissioner of Income-tax were that of depressed sales for period March 24, 2006, and March 30, 2006, for stock valued at Rs. 17 lakhs, which was ultimately sold for Rs. 1.37 lakhs. assessee's explanation was that threat of ongoing sealing drive drove it to sell stock at throwaway prices. Commissioner of Income-tax has, in his order, cited instance of goods worth Rs. 1,900 being sold for Rs. 200. Whilst consistent behaviour, of disclosing pattern, might justify conclusion which warrants rejection of books of account, explanation of assessee that but for such sales, stocks would have been inaccessible for inordinately long period of time, thus considerably risking its business, as against which it chose to liquidate its stocks, cannot be characterised as unreasonable. Therefore, to seize upon this or circumstance that 60 per cent. discount was offered ipso facto was insufficient to take different view. various authorities of Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has highlighted that power under section 263 cannot be invoked to correct mere error of Assessing Officer, based upon incorrect assumption of fact. There has to be something more to hold that determination is both erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue. Sunbeam (supra) cited by assessee also notices same aspect. Considering totality of circumstances, no substantial question of law arises. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal merely applied prevailing law on subject. appeal is consequently dismissed. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Garg Cheap Cut Piece House