The jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short inquiries or to go into the process of assessment again merely on the basis that more inquiry ought to have been conducted to find something.

1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, was admitted on October 27, 1999, however, substantial question of law required to be considered in this appeal was not formulated at that relevant time. The substantial question of law stated to be arising for consideration in this appeal by the Revenue has been set out in appeal as under :

"Whether, on the facts and having regard that confirmations from creditors were not filed, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order was not erroneous and consequently in cancelling the order under section 263 ?"

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. The assessment for the assessment year 1993-94 in the case of the respondent-assessee was completed on January 31, 1996, under section 143(3).

4. The Commissioner of Income-tax considering the said order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue invoked his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, cancelled the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment order after making inquiry into the genuineness of fresh deposits made in the capital accounts of the partners, genuineness of cash credits in the names of 26 different persons totalling Rs. 4,22,115, as per Schedule B to the audit report, genuineness of outstanding liability amounting to Rs. 14,16,348 in the names of various persons as per Schedule C and also after examining whether there is any acceptance or repayment of loan or deposit of Rs. 20,000 or more otherwise than by cheque/bank draft and then redetermine the income chargeable to tax.

5. The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, dated March 27, 1998, was set aside by the Tribunal by its judgment under appeal dated August 7, 1998.

6. A perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax shows that he has not exercised his jurisdiction on finding or apprehending that the assessment was erroneous in the above aspects as such. On the contrary, he was primarily concerned that no enquiry was conducted in respect of the aforesaid items and, therefore, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as it has been founded without application of mind by holding proper enquiries.

7. The Tribunal, on the other hand, has referred in its order, to details of the proceedings, which led to the final assessment order, revealing that the Assessing Officer was alive on all these questions and he has called upon the assessee to produce relevant material in regard to areas which were stated by the Commissioner of Income-tax to be not inquired into and after the material was produced before the Income-tax Officer, further time was given and some more documents were specifically required from the assessee before assessment could be made and only thereafter has the assessment been made after discussing the case with authorised representatives of the assessee. The record of proceedings clearly shows that the Assessing Officer has framed his assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all areas, which, according to the Commissioner of Income-tax, have not been at all enquired into and the Assessing Officer has acted merely on furnishing evidence on one single date.

8. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the material which was relied on by the Tribunal to set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax.

9. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings on October 16, 1995, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce documents or material in relation to 10 different items, which included the details of capital contributed by partners, details of purchases made in excess of Rs. 20,000 with evidence, confirmation of unsecured loans, amongst other matters, which the Assessing Officer desired to enquire into.

10. The assessee has produced the desired information by November 15, 1995. Thereafter, the case w