IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI A.D. JAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM ITA No. 414/JP/2016 Assessment Years : 2011-12 Manjul Chandani, cuke Commissioner of 18, Murli Bhawan, videh Kaur Vs. Income Tax, Colony, Kila, Near Agrawal Alwar. Nursing Home, Bharatpur- 321001.PAN/GIR No.: ABBPC 6050 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Rajendra Agarwal (CA) s Revenue by: Shri M.S. Meena (CIT) Date of Hearing : 08/09/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 15/09/2016 ORDER PER: A.D. JAIN, J.M. This is assessees appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 filed against order dated 14/03/2016 passed by ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, contending that ld. CIT has erred in initiating proceedings U/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) and in cancelling assessment order passed by Assessing Officer U/s 2 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT 143(3) of Act on 07/01/2014 and directing Assessing Officer to pass assessment order afresh. 2. Vide order dated 07/01/2014, passed U/s 143(3) of Act, Assessing Officer observed that it was seen that assessee had carried out business of earning commission of dealings of recharge vouchers of various prepaid mobile companies. assessee had earned net commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/- on total transactions of mobile recharge vouchers of Rs. 46,72,000/- towards service rendered. assessee was required to produce books of account alongwith other supporting evidence regarding justification in respect of arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-. However, assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence expressed his inability to produce evidence in respect of arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-. Assessing Officer observed that looking at facts and circumstances of case and in absence of any documentary evidence in respect of assessee having shown commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-, he (Assessing Officer) was left with no option but to compute total commission income on basis of estimation. Assessing Officer estimated income of assessee from commission at 5% of total mobile recharge vouchers of Rs. 46,72,000/-. This amounted to 3 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT Rs. 2,33,600/-. Subtracting stated commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/- from aforesaid commission arrived at by Assessing Officer at Rs.2,33,600/-, remainder of Rs. 51,325/- was added to total income of assessee. 3. ld. CIT was of opinion that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue, inasmuch as, Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries on following points, as communicated to assessee vide notice U/s 263 of Act, is as follows:- 1 As per sl. No. 14 of questionnaire issued vide no. 696 dated 05/09/2013 following query was raised by Assessing Officer: 14 Furnish source of cash deposits in saving bank accounts with justification . Perusal of assessment record reveals that as per written reply dated 10/12/2013 filed by Assessing Officer/R following replies has been submitted:- 14. entire cash deposits in savings accounts were deposited out of cash received from recharge vouchers transactions of Rs. 46,72,000/- made during year concerned. 20. Complete books of accounts are being produced herewith for your kind verification. 4 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT 2. As per reply to question no. 5 & 6 of your statements recorded on 02/01/2014 u/s 131 of Act, you had stated that you do not maintain any details or books of account etc. in respect of business transactions. 3. Further, as per para 7 of assessment order it has been held by Assessing Officer as. assessee was required to produce books of a/c alongwith other supporting evidences regarding justification in respect of arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-. However, assessee failed to produce documentary evidence in this regard and expressed his inability to produce any documentary evidence in respect of arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-. 4. Perusal of assessment record reveals that during period relevant to Assessing Officer under consideration cash deposits to tune of Rs. 46,58,400/- were made in your savings bank account held with IDBI Bank. Assessing Officer had made only cursory enquiries on issue and had failed to make verification of said cash deposits since there is nothing on record to suggest manner of verification of said cash deposits in form of maintenance of cash book or filing of any cash flow statement by assessee and in absence of having brought on record any such details it is not clear as to how Assessing Officer drew conclusion regarding source of cash deposits in bank account being found 5 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT verifiable. above factual matrix reveals that Assessing Officer had issued assessment order without making enquiries or verification which should have been made to ascertain source and nature of cash deposits to tune of Rs. 46,58,400/- during period under consideration. 4. In response, assessee filed following written submissions before ld. CIT on 15/2/2016, which is as under:- 1. Your honour himself stated that as per questionnaire ld. A.O. raised query of sources of cash deposits in saving account and assessee submitted detailed submissions in regard to sources of entire cash deposits of Rs. 46,72,000/- to utmost satisfaction of ld. A.O. and being satisfied from facts and circumstances of case and detailed submissions of assessee by way of written submissions and replies during course of statements of assessee recorded on 02/01/2014, ld. A.O. considered submissions and replies and completed assessment by estimating income from commission at Rs. 2,33,600/- (5% of total mobile re-charge vouchers of Rs. 46,72,000/-, entire cash deposits in bank account) against income of Rs. 1,82,275/- shown by assessee. 2. Further as evident from bank statement of IDBI itself it is evident that opening balance as on 01/04/2010 was Rs. 6 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT 83,436/- and closing balance as at 31.03.2011 was Rs. 544/- meaning thereby there was no peak credit but that there was peak withdrawals of Rs. 82,892/- (Rs. 83,436 minus Rs. 544/-), hence where there is no peak credit no further justification of sources of were warranted as sales receipts of recharge vouchers received at time to time were deposited in bank account to purchases recharge vouchers from open market. 3. Whatever books of accounts maintained by assessee viz. bank statement etc. were examined by ld. A.O. in depth and after his utmost satisfaction and looking to facts and circumstances of case as evident from para No. 7 at Page 2 of assessment order U/s 143(3) dated 07/01/2014, he estimated total income from commission on basis of estimation and he estimated total commission income @ 5% of total mobile recharge of Rs. 46,72,000/- at Rs. 2,33,600/- against income of Rs. 1,82,275/- shown by assessee. 4. business activity of trading recharge vouchers has not been disputed at any time either by ld. A.O. or by your honor. 5. entire cash deposit of Rs. 46,72,000/- is related to receipt of mobile vouchers sold has never disputed either of ld. A.O. or by your honour. 7 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT Without prejudice to above, it is humbly submitted to your honour that ld. A.O. after going through material on record after making utmost examination and verification of books of accounts and complete records maintained and after considering explanation of assessee completed assessment proceedings and Ld. A.O. has already applied his mind and considered both above issues and after making his utmost satisfaction and applying his mind, he completed assessment proceedings U/s 143(3) of IT Act, 1961. Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 0282 (SC) held that phrase prejudicial to interest of revenue in section 263 of Act, has to be read in conjunction with expression erroneous order passed by AO. Every loss of revenue as consequence of order of A.O. cannot be treated as prejudicial to interest of revenue. For example, when A.O. adopts one of two course of permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, of where two views are possible and A.O. has taken one view with which commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to revenue, unless view taken by A.O. is unsustainable in law . ratio of this judgment of Hon ble Apex Court has been followed in judgment of Hon ble Jodhpur Bench of ITAT in 8 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT case of M/s Deviji Exports, Jodhpur Vs. ITO 48 Tax World 99. Hon ble Indore Bench of ITAT in case of Manish Kumar Vs. CIT 134 ITD 27 (Indore) (Trib) has held that If A.O. acting in accordance with law makes certain assessment, same cannot be branded as erroneous by commissioner simply because he disagrees with view of A.O. or according to him order should have been written more elaborately. Therefore, Section 263 does not visualize case of substitution of judgment of commission from ITO, who passed order, unless decision is held to be erroneous. In case of CIT Vs Girdhari Lal (2002) 176 CTR (Raj) 0092/258 ITR 331 (Raj) DBIT Ref. No. 3 of 1987 (jurisdictional High Court) held that when A.O. after going through material on record and after considering explanation of assessee, completed assessment, it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind. In case of M/s Hycron India Vs. ACIt (ITA No. 622/JP/1996) ITAT Jodhpur Bench 30 Tax World 232 held that assessment order passed by A.O. cannot be subjected to revision U/s 263 on issue on which A.O. has applied his mind while passing order. Further held that merely possibility of another view of 9 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT matter will not justify invoking of provisions of Section 263. Every loss of revenue as consequence of order of A.O. cannot be treated as prejudicial to interest of revenue. Provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or committed by A.O. It has also be held that A.O. had applied his mind to facts of case before allowing exemption and this is only case of substitution of opinion by higher authorities. In case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) it rules that this provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by A.O. In case of Gaberierl India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) held that CIT cannot revise order merely because he disagrees with conclusion arrived by ITO and conclusion arrived by ITO cannot be termed as erroneous simply because CIT does not feel satisfied with conclusion of ITO. In case of Baljees Vs. ACIT (2004) 85 TTJ (Chd) 543 held that CIT cannot substitute his subjective view in place of findings of A.O. CIT cannot sit in judgment for discretion expressed by A.O. Where detailed enquiries have been made by A.O., CIT was not justified in cancelling assessment U/s 263 on ground that assessment 10 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT had been made in undue haste without making desired enquiries. In case of CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers 124 Taxman 615 (Guj) held that where all material were on record, said material was considered by ITO and particular view was taken, mere fact that different view could be taken, should not be basis for action U/s 263. Hence, therefore, assessment order passed U/s 143(3) by Ld. A.O. is not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue on two grounds mentioned by your honour. Therefore, your Honour is kindly prayed to please drop proceedings initiated by your honour U/s 263 of IT Act, 1961 and oblige. 5. Dissatisfied, vide letter dated 22/2/2016, ld. CIT required assessee to file written reply, duly supported by documentary evidence. 6. In his reply dated 03/3/2016, assessee requested ld. CIT to consider written submissions filed by assessee on 15/2/2016. 7. By virtue of impugned order, ld. CIT set aside assessment order and directed Assessing Officer to properly examine all issues raised and to pass fresh assessment order after making proper enquiries and after affording adequate opportunity to assessee. ld. CIT observed that no details regarding business of 11 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT recharge vouchers had been furnished in assessment proceedings, nor any such details had been filed in revision proceedings. Due to which, assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. It was observed as under:- 1. Assessing Officer has failed to make proper investigation to determine source of cash deposits in bank accounts. source of apparent source is relevant enquiry. That, Assessing Officer has failed to apply his mind to all aspects of case is therefore self- evident. Such non-application of mind constituted passing of erroneous order which is also prejudicial to interest of revenue. 1.2. When requisite enquiry was not made, order is bound to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. No inquiry on sale/purchase of mobile recharge coupons and nature of cash deposits in bank account at Bharatpur and withdrawn at Jaipur was made by Assessing Officer. onus to explain same was on assessee which it has failed to discharge. Further, during AY 2010-11, assessee has declared income from tuition and not mobile recharge. If relevant enquiry was not made it may in appropriate cases amount to no enquiry and may also be case of non-application of mind. 12 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT 1.3 Where relevant enquiry was not undertaken, as in this case, order is erroneous and prejudicial too and therefore revisable. Investigation should always be faithful and fruitful. Unless all fruitful areas of enquiry are pursued enquiry cannot be said to have been faithfully conducted. 1.4 In A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it was not duty of Revenue to adduce evidence to show from what source, income was derived and why it should be treated as concealed income. assessee must prove satisfactorily source and nature of cash received during accounting year. Similar observations were made in CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC), inter alia holding that it was not necessary for Revenue to locate exact source. 8. ld. CIT held that in present case, no enquiry/verification had been conducted by Assessing Officer on issues covered by notice issued U/s 263 of Act. ld. CIT concluded by holding as under:- In view of above, order passed by AO for assessment year 2011-12 dated 07/01/2014 is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interests of revenue, as I am of opinion that order has been 13 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. I, therefore, cancel assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) on 07/01/2014 with direction to Assessing Officer to pass assessment order after considering above mentioned issue, apart from other issues discussed in assessment order dated 07/01/2014 and also issues which may subsequently come into notice of Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings u/s 143(3)/263 of Income tax Act, 1961. Consequently, order passed u/s 143(3) of Act is set aside under section 263 of Act with direction that AO should properly examine all issues raised in foregoing paras and pass assessment order afresh after making proper enquiries and after affording adequate opportunity to assessee. 9. Before us, ld. Counsel for assessee has contended that ld. CIT(A) has erred in initiating proceedings U/s 263 of Act and cancelling assessment order, directing Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order; that order passed by Assessing Officer is not at all either erroneous or prejudicial to interests of revenue; that vide questionnaire issued by Assessing Officer assessee, Assessing Officer had made enquiry about sources of cash deposits in savings account of assessee; that assessee had submitted details submissions; that it was only on being satisfied with 14 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT assessee s reply, that Assessing Officer completed assessment by estimating assessee s income from commission at Rs. 2,33,600/-, i.e., 5% of total mobile recharge vouchers of Rs. 46,72,000/-, entire cash deposits in bank account, against income of Rs. 1,82,275/-, as shown by assessee; that even as per bank statement of IDBI, as filed by assessee, there was no peak credit, sales receipts of recharge vouchers having been deposited by assessee from time to time; that as available from para 7 of assessment order itself, Assessing Officer duly examined material on record and it was sorted that he estimated total commission income, that business activity of assessee has not been challenged, not only by Assessing Officer but also by ld. CIT; that it has also not been disputed that entire cash deposits relates to receipt of mobile vouchers sold; that Assessing Officer carried out examination of matter to his satisfaction and passed assessment order on due application of mind; that all possible enquiries were duly made by Assessing Officer; that statement of assessee U/s 131 of Act was recorded on 02/1/2014; that ld. CIT has erred in referring to amendment to Section 263 of Act, which was brought about only after passing of assessment order; that as such, order under appeal is unsustainable 15 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT in law; and that, therefore, order under appeal be cancelled and assessment order be maintained. 10. On other hand, CIT DR has placed strong reliance on impugned order. It has been submitted that undisputedly, Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries with regard to source of cash deposits in assessee s savings bank account; that assessee had himself stated before Assessing Officer that he did not maintain any details or books of account, etc., in respect of his business transactions; that in para 7 of assessment order, Assessing Officer himself observed that assessee failed to produce documentary evidence and expressed his inability to do so with regard to arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-; that with regard to cash deposits, Assessing Officer did not carry out requisite enquiries; that Assessing Officer made only cursory enquiries, failing to make verification of cash deposits. Particularly, in absence of nothing on record to show manner of verification of cash deposits; that there was no cash books maintained by assessee; that no cash flow statement was also filed; that as such, assessment order does not evince as to how Assessing Officer arrived at conclusion which he did, concerning source of cash deposit; that Assessing Officer 16 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT passed assessment order without making enquiries or verification which should have been made so as to ascertain source and nature of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 46,58,400/-; that as correctly observed by ld. CIT, source of apparent source is relevant enquiry, which was not made by Assessing Officer in present case; that Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry regarding sale/purchase of mobile recharge coupons and nature of cash deposits in bank account at Bharatpur and withdrawals made at Jaipur; that it does not stand disputed that as observed by ld. CIT, during A.Y. 2010-11, i.e., immediately preceding assessment year, assessee had declared income from tuition and not from mobile recharge; that no relevant enquiry was undertaken by Assessing Officer in this regard; that, therefore, obviously, ld. CIT was correct in initiating proceedings U/s 263 of Act and in setting aside assessment order to be passed afresh after making proper enquiries; and that, therefore, appeal filed by assessee does not carry any merit and same be dismissed. 11. We have heard rival contentions of both parties and have perused material available on record. As per record, assessee derives income from short term capital gain, income from other 17 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT sources and income from commission of mobile recharges. For year under consideration, Assessing Officer noticed assessee to have carried out business of earning commission on dealings of recharge vouchers of various prepaid mobile companies. assessee had earned net commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/- on total transactions of mobile recharge vouchers of Rs. 46,72,000/-, towards service rendered. Assessing Officer asked assessee to produce books of account alongwith other supporting evidence, so as to justify arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-. assessee, however, failed to produce any documentary evidence in this regard. assessee expressed his inability to produce any documentary evidence in respect of arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-. Assessing Officer observed that looking at facts and circumstances of case and in absence of any documentary evidence concerning of showing of commission income at Rs. 1,82,275/-, he was left with no option but to compute total income on basis of estimation. Assessing Officer arrived at estimated income of commission of Rs. 2,33,600/-, which was 5% of total mobile recharge vouchers of Rs. 46,72,000/-. 12. ld. CIT is of view that Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries regarding source of cash deposits by 18 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT assessee in his savings bank account. As per ld. CIT, despite fact that, in his reply, in his statement recorded U/s 131 of Act, whereby, assessee had stated that he did not maintain any detail or books of account etc. in respect of business transactions and despite fact that assessee failed to produce documentary evidence regarding justification in respect of arriving at commission income of Rs. 1,82,275/-. Assessing Officer did not make proper enquiries into matter. ld. CIT is of opinion that there is nothing on record as to manner of verification carried out by Assessing Officer with regard to cash deposits. Thus, according to ld. CIT, Assessing Officer had made only cursory enquires on issue. ld. CIT has observed that Assessing Officer did not bring on record any details with regard to cash deposits, like maintenance of cash book or filing of any cash flow statement by assessee and so, it is not clear as to how, Assessing Officer drew conclusion regarding source of cash deposits having been found verifiable. ld. CIT has further observed that despite assessee having been provided opportunity to file written reply duly supported with documentary evidence, assessee did not do so. He observed that neither any details regarding carrying out so claimed business of recharge vouchers were found to have 19 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT been furnished during assessment proceedings, nor any such details to prove such activities were adduced before him (Ld. CIT). It was observed that source of apparent source is relevant enquiry and Assessing Officer failed to make proper investigation to determine source of cash deposits; that Assessing Officer failed to apply his mind to all aspects of case; that no requisite enquiry was made by Assessing Officer; that relevant enquiry was not undertaken by Assessing Officer; and that as such, assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to interests of revenue. 13. It is seen that in questionnaire issued to assessee by Assessing Officer, Assessing Officer raised query regarding source of cash deposit. reply filed by assessee was considered by Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer never questioned assessee s business of earning commission on dealings of recharge vouchers of various prepaid mobile companies. assessee failed to produce documentary evidence. However, his statement U/s 131 of Act was recorded and his replies filed were taken into consideration. Assessing Officer estimated income of commission at Rs. 2,33,600/- being 5% of total mobile recharge vouchers at Rs. 46,72,000/-, which represented entire cash deposits made by assessee in his bank 20 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT account. As per bank statement of IDBI, opening balance in account as on 01/4/2010 was of Rs. 83,436/-, closing balance as on 31/3/2011 was of Rs. 544/-. As such, there was no peak credit but there were withdrawals of Rs. 82,892/-. receipts of recharge vouchers were deposited in bank account, assessee has maintained so. It was on basis of above, that estimation was resorted to by Assessing Officer. In fact, Assessing Officer has himself observed that it was looking at facts and circumstances of case and in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to showing of commission income at Rs. 1,82,275/-, that total commission income was being computed on basis of estimation. 14. ld. CIT, it is seen, has gone by amendment of Section 263 of Act, brought in on 01/6/2015. As per this amendment, inter alia, it has been provided that order passed by Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interests of revenue, if, in opinion of Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. reading of impugned order shows that stress of ld. CIT is on enquiries or verification which should have been made . On through order under appeal, 21 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT ld. CIT is of opinion that Assessing Officer has not made enquiries, which should have been made or proper investigation, or requisite enquiry, or relevant enquiry. ld. CIT, however, has remained oblivious of fact that whereas aforesaid amendment in Section 263 has been brought about w.e.f. 01/6/2015, assessment order under consideration was passed on 07/1/2014. That being so, amended provisions of Section 263 did not apply to assessment order in question. law has applicable to pre-amended provisions of Section 263 is that, inter alia, only in case of no enquiry or in case of illegal order and provisions of Section 263 be invoked. present, on other hand, is not case of no enquiry. As discussed, Assessing Officer has made enquiry and investigation into matter on basis of material available on record. estimation of income shows due application of mind by Assessing Officer. It is only that ld. CIT has sought to substitute his opinion for that of Assessing Officer, which is impermissible in law. 15. In CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. , (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), it has been held that phrase prejudicial to interest of revenue in Section 263 of Act has to be read in conjunction with expression erroneous order passed by Assessing Officer ; that every loss of 22 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT revenue as consequence of order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to interests of revenue; that when Assessing Officer adopts one of two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and Assessing Officer has taken one view with which Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to revenue, unless, view taken by Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In present case, it has not been shown that course adopted by Assessing Officer was not course permissible in law, nor has view taken by Assessing Officer being shown to be unsustainable in law. 16. In CIT Vs Girdhari Lal , 258 ITR 331 (Raj), it has been held by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court that when Assessing Officer completed assessment after going through material on record and after considering explanation of assessee, it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind. In case before us, Assessing Officer has estimated income of assessee after going through material on record and considering explanation of assessee. 17. In Gaberial India Ltd. , 203 ITR 108 (Bom), it has been held that CIT cannot revise assessment order merely because he disagrees 23 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT with conclusion arrived at by Assessing Officer and conclusion arrived at by Assessing Officer cannot be termed as erroneous, simply because CIT does not feel satisfied with conclusion of Assessing Officer. 18. In Baberwad Shiksha Samitee Vs CIT(E) , (2016) 177 TTJ 380 (JP), this Bench of Tribunal has held that where Assessing Officer has formed view but ld. CIT has formed another view on same facts and circumstances of case, change of opinion is not possible under law. In Manish Kumar Vs CIT , 134 ITD 27 (Indore) (Trib), it has been held that if Assessing Officer, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, same cannot be branded as erroneous by Commissioner simply because he disagrees with view of Assessing Officer or, according to him, order should have been written more elaborately; and that Section 263 does not visualize case of substitution of judgment of Commissioner for that of Assessing Officer, who passed order, unless his decision is held to be erroneous. 19. In view of above discussion, we hold that ld. CIT erred in initiating proceedings U/s 263 of Act and in setting aside assessment order directing Assessing Officer to frame assessment 24 ITA 414/JP/2016_ Manjul Chandani Vs CIT afresh after making proper enquiries. Accordingly, order under appeal is cancelled and order passed by Assessing Officer is revived. 20. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 15/09/2016. Sd/- Sd/- fo (Vikram Singh Yadav) (A.D. Jain) Accountant Member Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 15th September, 2016 Ranjan Copy of order forwarded to: s 1. Appellant- Shri Manjul Chandani, Bharatpur. 2. Respondent- CIT, Alwar. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 414/JP/2016) By order, Asst. Registrar Manjul Chandani v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Alwar