JUDGMENT 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. 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 was adjourned to November 22, 1995 and December 1, 1995. On December 5, 1995, the Assessing Officer studied the sundry creditors, unsecured loans and desired to furnish affidavits of unsecured loans and details of interest paid and the case was adjourned to January 19, 1996. On January 19, 1996, the Assessing Officer again required the assessee to furnish the details of partners capital accounts and also to produce vouchers for expenses and the matter was adjourned for January 23, 1996. On January 19, 1996, the Assessing Officer again required the assessee to furnish the details of partners capital accounts and also to produce vouchers for expenses and the matter was adjourned for January 23, 1996. On January 23, 1996, the case was discussed and finalised. After that, assessment was completed by passing the assessment order. These matters clearly indicate that the Assessing Officer particularly made reference to the matters which the Commissioner of Income-tax has opined were not inquired into. 11. Thus, according to the Tribunal, the foundation to exercise power under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act, was not existing. 12. We are of the opinion in the aforesaid circumstances on the finding reached by the Assessing Officer, no question of law really arises for consideration in this appeal. 13. It is true that in a given case not holding any enquiry, which is relevant for assessment may indicate non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer or furnish ground for taking action under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income-tax. 14. In this connection, reference may be made in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein the Commissioner of Income-tax opined that the Income-tax Officer has passed the order of "nil" assessment without application of mind. The High Court accepted this part of the assertion made by the Commissioner of Income-tax in his order that the Income-tax Officer has failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspectives and the order passed by him was erroneous. The High Court has also found that the assessment order was passed without application of mind. The High Court rightly held that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263(1) was justified. 15. From the record of the proceedings, in the present case, no presumption can be drawn that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the various aspects of the matter. In such circumstances, without even prima facie laying the foundation for holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest in any matter merely on the specious ground that the Assessing Officer was required to make an enquiry, cannot be held to satisfy the test of necessary condition existing for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. 16. 16. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction under section 263 is wide and is meant to ensure that due revenue ought to reach the public treasury and if it does not reach on account of some mistake of law or fact committed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax can cancel that order and require the concerned Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after holding a detailed enquiry. But when enquiry in fact has been conducted and the Assessing Officer has reached a particular conclusion, though reference to such enquiries has not been made in the order of assessment, but the same is apparent from the record of the proceedings, in the present case, without anything to say how and why the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer was not in accordance with law, the invocation of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax was unsustainable. As the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Income-tax is founded on no material, it was liable to be set aside. Jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 17. The finding of the Tribunal that the Income-tax Officer had passed the assessment order after relevant enquiries and considering the aspects of the matter required by the Commissioner of Income-tax to be considered by him is a finding of fact and on the basis of which, the jurisdiction assumed by the Commissioner of Income-tax being non-existent must be held to be not sustainable. 18. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. *******