JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in ITA No. 138/ Ran 2018 for the period AY 2013-14; whereby the learned tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Assessee and set aside the order of learned Commissioner dated 22.03.2018 passed under Section 263 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). 3. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent Assessee is the sole proprietor of M/s RK Trader who filed her return of income for in the AY 2013-14 showing a total income of Rs. 10,36,390/-. Subsequently, the case of the respondent was selected for scrutiny and accordingly notice under Section 143 (2) and 143 (1) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2014 and 08.05.2015, respectively and an order dated 03.12.2015 was passed by the assessing officer assessing total income at Rs.11,56,390/- against the return income of Rs.10,36,390/-. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued a suo motu revision proceeding against the respondent Assessee under Section 263 of the IT Act on following grounds: “During the course of examination of the records, it has been noticed that there is huge rotation of money amongst relatives without payment or receipt of interest. The assessee has raised loans from the relatives aggregating to Rs. 6,75,08,220/-. Financial dealings amongst the relative/group firms appears to be transformation of income in the hands of recipients of loan from the capital advanced by others, independent verification of such transaction had not been done by the assessing officers. None verification of this issue has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, notice under Section 263 has been issued to the assessee.” During the 263 proceedings, notice was issued to the Assessee to which she duly replied and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax being dissatisfied by the reply passed an order under Section 263 of the Act holding that the assessment order dated 03.12.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act and accordingly the said order is set aside with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after making proper enquiry and necessary investigation. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263, the respondent Assessee filed appeal before the learned tribunal who vide its order dated 20.02.2019 passed in ITA No.138/RAN/18 allowed the appeal of the Assessee and set aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Act. However, in the meantime, fresh assessment order was passed on 13.12.2018 under Section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income Tax Act and the total income tax assessed was Rs.2,62,78,410/-. 4. The instant appeal was admitted on 21.02.2022 on following substantial question of law vide order dated 21.02.2022 which is quoted herein below: “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in setting aside the order passed under Section 263 of Income Tax Act by CIT, though the Assessing Officer, had not carried the verification and inquiry as to the creditworthiness of the two depositors in particular as was also required under Explanation-2 to Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 introduced with effect from 1st June, 2015. (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the Assessing Officer had duly verified the genuineness of unsecured loans? (iii) Whether the observations of learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion as to the creditworthiness and of the depositors and genuineness of the transaction are perverse?” 5. Learned counsel for the revenue assailed the impugned judgment on following grounds: a) The Learned ITAT is not justified in quashing the order u/s 263 of the Act dt. 22/27.03.2018 without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the genuineness of unsecured loans despite the fact that the case was selected under CASS for the reason "large increase of unsecured loans" and the assessing officer passed the order u/s 143(3) dated 03.12.2015 without making inquiries or verification which should have been made and accordingly the said order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudice to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of explanation 2(a) of sub-section 2 of section 263 of the I.T. Act. b) The Learned ITAT was not justified in holding that the assessing officer had duly verified the genuineness of unsecured loans, especially when the depositors in question were prima facie not creditworthy to lend huge unsecured loans to the respondent assessee. c) The Learned ITAT has erroneously held that the A.O. had duly verified the genuineness of unsecured loans, especially when pursuant to the order u/s 263 of the income tax act, 1961; the assessment order, had resulted in addition of Rs 2,51,22,019 u/s 68 owing to the failure of the assessee in proving the genuineness of unsecure loans in term of the provision of section 68 and that is itself indicative of the fact that the assessment order date 3.12.2015 was passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. Relying upon the aforesaid submissions learned counsel for the Revenue prays that the impugned order passed by the learned ITAT be quashed and the order dated 22.03.2018 passed u/s 263 and also the subsequent assessment order dated 13.12.2018 passed u/s 263/143 pursuant to the order passed u/s 263 be restored. 6. Learned counsel for the Assessee supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned CIT has failed to appreciate the settled proposition of law that once the 1st assessing officer has given opinion then there is no question of revision of the assessment order as it will amount to change of opinion. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar industrial co. ltd vs Commisioner of income tax, Kerala reported in (2000) 2 SCC 718 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at para 6 as under: “6. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the prerequisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent — if the order of the Income Tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue — recourse cannot be had to Section 263(1) of the Act.” 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the relevant records of the case and the impugned order passed by the ITAT it appears that the learned tribunal based its judgment due to the fact that during the scrutiny proceeding the AO issued notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act and he has also made a query with regard to source and details of introduction of capital with evidence and the said reply has been duly complied by the Assessee and since the AO passed the assessment order, may be without dealing the said issue, but it can be safely presumed that the AO has duly applied his mind for verification of loan obtained by the Assessee from various relatives. For brevity relevant part of the impugned order is quoted herein below: “13. ……......... During the scrutiny proceedings, the AO issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, 1961 dated 8th May 2015 and again on 9 July, 2015 where the AO has specifically asked the assessee to furnish the following documents and evidences (a) Source and details of introduction of capital with evidence (b) Reasons for increase of unsecured loans with evidence (c) All Bank account statements for FY 2012-13 (relevant to this assessment year) (d) Audit Report and Balance sheet as on 31.03 2013 and for earlier 31 03 2012. We note that all the above noted requisition of the AO as per requirement was duly furnished by the assessee, vide letter dated 29.07.2015. From the above documents, it can be safely presumed that the AQ has duly applied his mind for verification of the Loans obtained by the assesse from various relatives. ............ We note that all the above noted requisition of the AO as per requirement was duly furnished by the assessee, vide letter dated 29.07.2015. From the above documents, it can be safely presumed that the AQ has duly applied his mind for verification of the Loans obtained by the assesse from various relatives. ............ We note that if the AO has passed a short order, without much discussion and detail reasons, but it is clear from the records that there has been an application of mind it cannot be said that order passed by the AO is erroneous and therefore, the powers u/s. 263 of the Act, cannot be invoked in such cases. .......... 14. Apart from this, so far the current year’s addition in the loan account is concerned, the assessing officer had issued notice under section 142 (1) of the Act and in response to said notice the assessee had furnished the required documents and evidences. That is, the assessee has produced relevant material and offered explanation in pursuance of the notices 142(1) as well as section 143(2) and after considering those materials and explanation, the AO has come to a definite conclusion. The CIT did not agree with the conclusion reached by the AO. The Section 263 of the Act does not empower Pr CIT to take action on these facts to arrive at the conclusion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue Since the material was thereon record and the said material was considered by the AO and a particular view was taken, the mere fact that different view can be taken, should not be the basis for an action under Section 263 of the Act and it cannot be held to be justified. The assessing officer had examined these documents and evidences so furnished by the assessee by doing detailed scrutiny under section 143(3) of the Act and came to the conclusion that there were no any irregularity and mistake in these documents. Hence, in this scenario, it can be said that order passed by the AO under section 143(3) dated 03.12.2015 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We are aware of the fact that the Assessing Officer's role while framing an assessment is not only an adjudicator. Hence, in this scenario, it can be said that order passed by the AO under section 143(3) dated 03.12.2015 is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We are aware of the fact that the Assessing Officer's role while framing an assessment is not only an adjudicator. The AO has a dual officer’s role while framing an assessment is not only an adjudicator. The AO has a dual role to dispense with i.e. he is an investigator as well as an adjudicator; therefore, if he fails in any one of the role as afore-stated, his order will be termed as erroneous. We note that in the assessee’s case under consideration, the AO had examined the each and every detail and applied his mind very carefully in respect of every issue explained by us in the above paras. Therefore, on this finding of fact by us, in above noted para Nos. 11 to 14 of this order, we cannot term the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) dated 03.12.2015 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 15. In any event we note that the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd vs CIT (supra). Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT is “null” in the eyes of law and, therefore, we are inclined to quash the very assumption of jurisdiction to invoke revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Principal CIT. Therefore, we quash the order of the Principal CIT dated 22.03.2018, being ab initio void. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”. 8. Before deciding the issue involved in the instant appeal; at the outset it is observed that Section 263 confers suo motu power of revision on the CIT. Therefore, we quash the order of the Principal CIT dated 22.03.2018, being ab initio void. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed”. 8. Before deciding the issue involved in the instant appeal; at the outset it is observed that Section 263 confers suo motu power of revision on the CIT. The different set of power conferred on different authorities under the Act has to be exercise within the area specifically delineated by the Act and the exercise of power under one provision cannot trench upon the powers available under another provision of the Act. The specific provision of Section 263 of the Act is that a satisfaction that an order passed by the authority under the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is the basic precondition for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Both are twin conditions that have to be conjointly present. Once such satisfaction is reached, jurisdiction of exercise to power would be available subject to observance of principle of natural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the Section to give the Assessee an opportunity of being heard. Further, by way of an amendment in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015; Explanation -2 has been inserted. For brevity, the same is quoted herein below:- "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-...... Further, by way of an amendment in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by way of Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015; Explanation -2 has been inserted. For brevity, the same is quoted herein below:- "263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-...... Explanation 2.— For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; (c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under Section 119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person." Thus, we see that by way of amendment, if the original order of assessment is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made, it will be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 9. In the instant case, during the course of examination of the records, it has been noticed by the commissioner that there is huge rotation of money amongst relatives without payment of receipts of interest. The Assessee has raised loans from the relatives aggregating to Rs.6,75,08,220/-. Financial dealing amongst the relatives/group firms/companies appeared to be transformation of income in the hands of recipient of loans from the capital advance by others. The learned commissioner has further observed that independent verification of such transaction had not been done by the assessing officer and non-verification of this issue has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly he issued notice to the respondent. The learned commissioner has further observed that independent verification of such transaction had not been done by the assessing officer and non-verification of this issue has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly he issued notice to the respondent. Pursuant to that, the Assessee filed a detailed reply specifically indicating therein that all requisition of the AO as per requirement was duly furnished by the Assessee and therefore it can be safely presumed that the AO has duly applied his mind for verification of loans obtained by the Assessee from various relatives and has duly examined the same and passed the assessment order. 10. The learned commissioner after going through the aforesaid reply has held as under (Relevant portion is extracted for the order passed u/s 263 of the Act): “On going through the submission made by the assessee it has been noticed that Sri Rajesh Chourasia has declared income of Rs 425.598 only for AY 2013-14. Prima facie on the Returns of Income the creditworthiness of advancing such huge amount of loan has not been established by the assessee. It is also noticed that in respect of R.C. Distributors only account statement has been submitted by the assessee. Thus, the creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has failed to make proper enquires in respect of the sources of fund creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing officer should have examined the sources of funds, creditworthiness of the creditors and the genuineness of the transaction as per provisions of the section 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the following persons. Rajesh Chourasia 1,51,55,675 1,51,22,019 (Addition) 3,02,77,694 R.C. Distributors 1,07,80,496 96,00,000 (Addition) 2,03,60,496 The case laws relied upon by the assessee are not applicable as the decisions have been made prior to insertion of explanation-2 to section 263 of the IT Act 1961 The following explanation has been inserted by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Rajesh Chourasia 1,51,55,675 1,51,22,019 (Addition) 3,02,77,694 R.C. Distributors 1,07,80,496 96,00,000 (Addition) 2,03,60,496 The case laws relied upon by the assessee are not applicable as the decisions have been made prior to insertion of explanation-2 to section 263 of the IT Act 1961 The following explanation has been inserted by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. “Explanation 2 For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner- (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. ..................” In the above backdrop, it is evident that the assessment order dated 03.12.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act and accordingly the said order is set aside with a direction to pass assessment order afresh after making proper enquiries and necessary investigation on the issue mentioned above.” 11. After going through the order passed under Section 263 it appears that the learned CIT after complying with the twin conditions, remitted the case to the AO with specific direction to pass a fresh assessment after making proper enquiry and investigation on the issue. It is also evident that pursuant to the order of remand a fresh assessment order has also been passed by the AO under Section 143 (3) read with Section 263 of the IT Act for the relevant assessment year assessing the total income as Rs.2,62,78,410/-. Thus, prima facie it appears that there was a loss of revenue as in the first assessment order the total income assessed by the assessing officer was only Rs.11,56,390/-. It further transpires from the 1st assessment order dated 03.12.2015 that the issue of source and details of introduction of capital has not at all dealt with by the then AO. As a matter of fact, the learned Commissioner had given some details that the AO has failed to make proper enquiries; relevant part has already been quoted herein above. 12. As a matter of fact, the learned Commissioner had given some details that the AO has failed to make proper enquiries; relevant part has already been quoted herein above. 12. The learned ITAT in its order, the relevant part of which is quoted herein above, has noted that the Assessee has complied with all the requisitions made by the then AO as per requirement vide letter dated 29.07.2015 and thus it can be safely presumed that the AO has duly applied his mind for verification of loan obtained by the Assessee from various relatives. However, from the 1st assessment order it can be seen that the then AO has not at all discussed about the source and details of introduction of capital with evidence. There is no discussion, whatsoever, in the entire assessment order. For brevity, the same is quoted herein below: “The assessee has filed her return of income for AY 2013-14 relevant to financial year 2012-13 on 28.09. 2013 showing a total income therein of Rs. 10,36,390/-. Subsequently, the case has been selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued in 03.09.2014 and 08.05.2015 respectively and duly served on the assessee. In compliance of the said notices Sri Parmanand Giri, Adv/AR of the assessee appeared from time to time, furnished details as per requisition, produced bank statement, computation of total income. Books of accounts, Bills and vouchers and other supporting documents which were test checked. The case was discussed and heard ITS data was verified. During the course of hearing, it has been found that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 1,89,227/- under the head "Office Expenses". On being asked to file the details of "Office Expenses", the A.R. of the assessee produced self made debit vouchers in support of his claim. Since all the vouchers are self made debit vouchers hence inflation on such expenses cannot be ruled out. Hence excess deduction of Rs 50,000/- of Rs. 1,89,227/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Further, the assessee has claimed Rs. 2,12,850/-under the head "Travelling Expenses". This time also, the A/R of the assessee produce self-made debit vouchers in support of the claim. Since all the vouchers a self-made and that too are not verifiable, Rs.70,000/-out of Rs.2,12,850 is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Further, the assessee has claimed Rs. 2,12,850/-under the head "Travelling Expenses". This time also, the A/R of the assessee produce self-made debit vouchers in support of the claim. Since all the vouchers a self-made and that too are not verifiable, Rs.70,000/-out of Rs.2,12,850 is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. In the light of the above discussion, the total income of the assessee is calculated as under: Total income as declared by the assessee : Rs.10,36,390/- Add: Addition on account of "Office Expenses" as discussed above Rs. 50,000/- Add: Addition on account of "Travelling Expenses" as discussed above. Rs. 70,000/- Total Income Rs. 11,56,390/- Assessed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 at a total income of Rs. 11,56,390/- Charged interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C as per Rule. Issued D.N., challan and copy of the order to the assessee.” Thus, by conjoint perusal of 1st assessment order and the order passed under Section 263 it is evident that the CIT has categorically observed that one Rajesh Chourasia has declared income of Rs. 4,25,598/- only for the relevant assessment year and thus, prima facie on the basis of return of income the creditworthiness of advancing such huge amount of loan has not been established by the Assessee. 13. The learned ITAT in its order at para 14 has held that the Assessee has produced relevant materials and offered explanation in pursuance of the notice issued to him and after considering those materials and explanation, the AO has come to a definite conclusion. This observation of the learned Tribunal appears to be perverse, inasmuch as, the then AO has not uttered a single word with regard any enquiries and/or verification made by him in order to ascertain the claim of the Assessee regarding the source and details of introduction of capital. So, it cannot be said that on the said issue he came on a definite conclusion. As a matter of fact, the learned Tribunal has utterly failed to consider the amendment made in section 263 of the Act by incorporating Explanation-2 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 with the expression “it is hereby declared”; meaning thereby to say that the same is clarificatory in nature and it will apply even to the assessments made prior to the amendment. As a matter of fact, the learned Tribunal has utterly failed to consider the amendment made in section 263 of the Act by incorporating Explanation-2 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 with the expression “it is hereby declared”; meaning thereby to say that the same is clarificatory in nature and it will apply even to the assessments made prior to the amendment. At this stage, it is also relevant to opine that the change of opinion is not permissible as per the settled proposition of law, inasmuch as, the law is no more res integra with regard to the issue that mere change of opinion by a subsequent officer cannot be the ground for compliance one of the twin conditions under Section 263. But when there is no opinion at all on a particular subject, we are of the considered view that there cannot be any change of opinion. 14. In the instant case, it is not a case of change of opinion; rather it is a case where the assessment order is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue due to lack of inquiries/verification by the original AO with regard to the claim of the Assessee regarding the source and details of introduction of capital. The law is also well settled as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarawagi versus CIT and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hand on his so offering the order passed by the Assessee officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Relevant paragraph of the Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT reported in (1973) 3 SCC 482 is quoted herein below: "4. In his assessment for the above year the Income Tax Officer, Howrah while remarking that the source of income of the assessee during the accounting year was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculative transactions made during the accounting year nor was there any evidence regarding the interest received by her from different parties on her investments. Notwithstanding these defects he did not investigate into the various sources but assessed the appellant on a total income of Rs 9037. Notwithstanding these defects he did not investigate into the various sources but assessed the appellant on a total income of Rs 9037. Thereafter, on June 7, 1963, the Commissioner by a notice under Section 33-B of the Act required the assessee to show cause on or before June 25, 1963, why appropriate orders should not be passed under that section in respect of Assessment Year 1960-61 as the enquiries revealed that the assessee neither resided nor carried on any business from the address given in the return, that the Income Tax Officer was not justified in accepting the initial capital, the sale of ornaments, the income from business, the investments, etc. “without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever and that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee showed cause on June 24, 1963 and after considering the objections of the assessee, the Commissioner passed an order cancelling the assessment for 1960-61 and directing the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment according to law after making enquiries with regard to the jurisdiction and the business carried on by the assessee, the possession of initial capital, acquisition and sale of ornaments, purchase of plot of land and resources and the money invested in the name of the assessee. In his order the Commissioner held that the assessments made by the Income Tax Officer were made in post haste without making any enquiry or investigation into that antecedents of the assessee. He further held that on enquiry it had been ascertained that the Income Tax Officer, ‘J’ Ward, District 1(I), Howrah had no jurisdiction over the assessee, the assessments made by them were ab initio void inasmuch as the departmental enquiries revealed that the assessee never resided nor carried on any business either at premises 5/A Bysack Street, Calcutta or at No. 1 Gunsala Road, Lillooah, Howrah. In fact the assessee had been living with her husband ever since her marriage in 1946 at Raniganj and for that reason he was of opinion that the Income Tax Officer was not justified in accepting the claim of initial capital of Rs 13,500 without any evidence placed on record nor was he justified in accepting that the assessee being a married lady was carrying on speculative business at Calcutta. The Commissioner refused to believe the sale of gold ornaments of the value of Rs 68,000 during the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 as genuine as no details of such ornaments were given. He further stated that the departmental enquiry had subsequently revealed that the firm of Keshardeo Aggarwal & Co., of 29, Burtolla Street, Calcutta through whom the ornaments were sold was not a genuine firm and that the assessee's husband was a partner in a firm of M/s Kaluram Prahladrai of Asansol in which the assessee is allowed to have made an investment of two sums of Rs 50,000 on November 26 and 28, 1957. In the result, having regard to the fact that the assessments for the years 1955-56 to 1959-60 were already beyond time for taking action, he cancelled the assessment for 1960-61 and directed the Income Tax Officer to make a fresh assessment as stated above." Further, even in the case of Malabar industrial (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “…………. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the Revenue………….” 15. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions and the proposition of law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court on the issue involved in this case the instant appeal is allowed and the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court goes in favour of Revenue. Consequently, the order dated 20.02.2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the CIT passed under Section 263 (1) dated 22/27.03.2018, is restored and as a result, the assessment order datd 13.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) read with 263 (1) of Income Tax Act, is also restored. 16. Accordingly, the instant Appeal is allowed.