ORDER/JUDGMENT – Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P. M. Choudhari, learned senior counsel with Shri Anand Prabhawalkar, Advocate and Ms. Rashi Gohil, Advocate for the respondent. 2. Present appeal is arising out of the order dated 27-9-2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Indore in I.T.A. No. 273/Ind/2015 in respect of assessment year 2010-11. 3. The facts of the case as stated in the appeal reveals that the respondent assessee- a company registered under the Companies Act is engaged in manufacturing of craft paper, which is used for manufacturing of corrugated boxes. The assessee has filed a return declaring total income of Rs. 22,66,320/- on 24-9-2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment year 2010-11 and assessment was completed on 29-3-2013 and the total income arrived at was Rs. 92,01,128/-. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee under section 80-IB(3)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 9,71,279/-. 4. It was also held by the assessing officer that there was no documentary evidence in the form of purchase bills of raw material waste made from the local unregistered dealers. The purchases from the unregistered dealers were made at average rate of 7.02 per kg. whereas purchases made from the registered dealers were at the rate of 5.65 per kg. and in those circumstances, the assessing officer worked out the difference in respect of purchases from unregistered dealers and registered dealers amounting to Rs. 33,78,921/- and the total addition was done on the aforesaid ground to the tune of Rs. 59,63,529/-. 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax held that the order passed by the assessing officer was an erroneous order and finally, passed an order under section 263 on 31-3-2015 in pursuance to the order passed by the CIT, Ujjain, the assessing officer made an assessment under section 143(3) read with section 263 and total income arrived at is Rs. 1,99,03,050/-. The department preferred an appeal against the order dated 31-3-2015 and the appeal has been allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The chronological events which took place in the present case are detailed as under : – Date Events 24-9-2010 The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,66,320/-. 1,99,03,050/-. The department preferred an appeal against the order dated 31-3-2015 and the appeal has been allowed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The chronological events which took place in the present case are detailed as under : – Date Events 24-9-2010 The assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 22,66,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessing authority viz. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Ujjain after making detailed queries/inquiries assessed the respondent vide his order dated 29-3-2013 after making disallowance under section 80-IB(3)(ii) and in respect of Bogus and inflated Purchase amounting Rs. 65,34,808/-. 10-12-2014 The appeal filed by Respondent assessee was decided by The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) The CIT (A) granted relief to the assessee on the issue of Bogus Purchases and inflated purchases. 19-3-2015 Notice for re-opening assessment under section 263 issued by CIT, Ujjain on alleged ground that the order of assessment is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that the AO had passed the order without applying his mind and without examining and investigating in to the payments made for URD purchases in cash for purpose of making disallowance under section 40-A(3) of the Act. Assessee filed objections to the said notice on various grounds particularly on the ground that since the issue of applicability of section 40-A(3) had already been examined by AO, proceedings under section 263 were without jurisdiction. 31-3-2015 Order passed by CIT under section 263 setting aside the order of assessment with the direction to examine the issue in the light of observations in the order. 28-3-2017 The CIT’s order dated 31-3-2015 passed under section 263 of the IT Act challenged by assessee before ITAT. ITAT has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of CIT, Ujjain. ITAT has come to the conclusion that CIT is not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the IT Act for detailed reasons assigned by ITAT in its order. The discussion is contained in para 13 onwards. The findings of the ITAT are found in para 16. 6. The revenue has filed present appeal under section 260-A of the IT Act 1961 on the substantial questions of law mentioned in the appeal memo. The discussion is contained in para 13 onwards. The findings of the ITAT are found in para 16. 6. The revenue has filed present appeal under section 260-A of the IT Act 1961 on the substantial questions of law mentioned in the appeal memo. The bare perusal of the order of ITAT establishes that on facts the ITAT has recorded a categorical finding to the effect that- “the Commissioner of Income Tax was not correct in observing that the assessing officer has failed to consider the application of provisions of section 40-A(3) of the Act as complete details were filed including details of purchases and the payments made towards purchases from URD and the ledger accounts of respective parties clearly shows that no payment in cash has been made more than Rs. 20,000/- in a day. This fact has been noted by Assessing officer at page 26 of the assessment order.” 7. The ITAT has further recorded a specific finding in the same para as under – “In the remand report submitted to CIT (A) during quantum appellate proceedings, it was reported that the vehicle No tally with small difference in some digits and purchases from URD are made in cash as they do not have bank account and thus do not accepts the cheques. The assessing officer also stated that one time cash payment made to URD below Rs. 20,000/- do not attract the provisions of section 40-A (3) of the Act. These facts have not been controverted by learned CIT in any manner, while passing the impugned order.” 8. The order passed by the ITAT reveals that the ITAT has given a finding of fact that the present case is not a case of lack of enquiry and hence CIT has no jurisdiction to invoke provisions of section 263. The issue is squarely covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pr CIT vs. Narayan Balmukund Dubey, reported in (2017) 30 ITJ 335, wherein this Court has held that in case where proper enquiry was done and proper investigation has been done and assessee has furnished all information in the matter, the CIT cannot exercise powers conferred under section 263. This Court has referred to and relied upon an earlier Division Bench decision in the case of CIT vs. Ratlam Coal ash Co., reported in (1988) 171 ITR 141. This Court has referred to and relied upon an earlier Division Bench decision in the case of CIT vs. Ratlam Coal ash Co., reported in (1988) 171 ITR 141. This Court has elaborately discussed the difference between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry and has finally held that powers under section 263 can be exercised only in case of lack of enquiry and not on the basis of insufficient or inadequate enquiry. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question whether in a case there is complete lack of enquiry or not is purely a question of fact to be decided on the basis of record of the case and in the present case the ITAT has recorded findings in Para 16 that CIT was not correct in observing that the AO had failed to consider the application of provisions of section 40-A(3) of the Act. Moreover, on the basis of remand report submitted by AO in Appellate proceedings, the ITAT has further recorded a finding that the AO had admitted that the provisions of section 40-A(3) are not attracted because no single payment exceeded Rs. 20,000/-. ITAT has also observed that this factual position about AO’s enquiry is not controverted by CIT in any manner while passing the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid findings of the ITAT, the present case does not involve any substantial question of law. Further the issue of applicability of provisions of section 263 has already been decided by this Court. 10. That apart from the question of applicability of provisions of section 263 on the basis of inadequate enquiry by AO, even on merits the ITAT has recorded a specific finding in Para 20 that there was no payment more than Rs. 20,000/- in a day which could be said to be in violation of section 40-A(3) of the Act. It has been further held by the ITAT that this factual position was not controverted before it by CIT?DR who defended revenue before ITAT. On the contrary the ITAT has referred to AO?s own finding at Page 26 of assessment order to the effect that there was no payment more than Rs. 20,000/- in a day. It has been further held by the ITAT that this factual position was not controverted before it by CIT?DR who defended revenue before ITAT. On the contrary the ITAT has referred to AO?s own finding at Page 26 of assessment order to the effect that there was no payment more than Rs. 20,000/- in a day. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the ITAT has held that the order of assessment is in order and sustainable on merits and could not be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, coming to the conclusion that invocation of section 263 is not valid. The same findings are repeated in Para 22 of the ITAT?s order. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conclusion of ITAT is based upon the above factual findings of the ITAT, as such, in absence of challenge to such findings, the order of ITAT is correct and proper and its decision finds support from the Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Narayan Balmukund Dubey (supra), hence the present case does not involve any substantial question of law. A perusal of the substantial question of law raised by revenue in the appeal would go to show that there is no challenge to the findings of the fact recorded by the ITAT. It is needless to mention that the findings of facts recorded by ITAT cannot be subject matter of challenge in appeal under section 260A unless the same are challenged as perverse or without any evidence. 12. In the present case, the tax effect in respect of disputed issue is less than the revise monetary limit of Rs. 1 Crore as prescribed in the latest circular dated 8-8-2019. 13. The proceedings under section 263 were initiated by CIT in the present matter on the ground that AO had failed to apply his mind to the question regarding applicability of provisions of section 40-A(3) of the IT Act (Order dated 31-3-2015). Thus the only question was regarding applicability of provisions of section 40-A(3). The AO in consequence of directions of CIT completed fresh assessment vide his order dated 30-3-2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the IT Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,66,65,446/- by making disallowance under section 40-A(3). Thus the tax effect on disputed issue of Rs. The AO in consequence of directions of CIT completed fresh assessment vide his order dated 30-3-2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the IT Act and made an addition of Rs. 1,66,65,446/- by making disallowance under section 40-A(3). Thus the tax effect on disputed issue of Rs. 1,66,65,446/- is relevant for the purpose of considering the monetary ceiling limit for filing appeal before this Hon’ble Court as prescribed by Circular dated 8-8-2019 which is calculated as under – 14. Tax on Total Income Assessed by AO in consequence of Order under section 263 passed by CIT (vide order dated 30-3-2016) Total Income assessed :1,99,03,050/- Tax thereon : 66,11,296/- Tax on income as reduced by amount of income in respect of disputed issues Total Income assessed after 263 – 1,99,03,050/- Disputed addition 1,66,65,446/- Net income excluding disputed addition 32,37,604/- Tax thereon 10,75,451/- i.e. Tax Effect on disputed issue relevant for circular dated 8-8-2019 Rs. 55,35,845/- 15. In light of the aforesaid, as the tax effect in respect of the disputed issue is certainly less than Rs. 1 Crore and no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal, the appeal is dismissed.