ORDER : D.N. RAY, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the Appellant. 2. The present Tax Appeal is filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Appellant, arising from the order dated 10.11.2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT (for short “the”) Rajkot, in ITA No. 67/Rjt/2022 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013, proposing the following substantial questions of law: A) Whether on the facts of the case as well as in law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act particularly when Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act was expressly invoked by the Ld. PCIT to deem an order prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of revenue? (B) Whether on the facts of the case as well as law, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT especially when the Assessment Order passed by the AO is unsustainable in law? (C) Whether on the facts of the case as well as law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT observing that the A.O. not erred in applying the GP rate of 19.40% of total case transaction of Rs. 1,21,81,000/- made by the assessee with National Shroff, especially when Ld. PCIT has correctly observed that the A.O. did not properly examine the issue? (D) Whether on the facts of the case as well as law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in quashing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT especially when the order passed by A.O. was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue? (E) Whether on the facts of the case as well as law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee against the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act of Ld. PCIT when there was gross inadequacy in inquiry conducted as per order of Apex Court in case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. [CA No. 6126 of 2021 (SC)]? 3. PCIT when there was gross inadequacy in inquiry conducted as per order of Apex Court in case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. [CA No. 6126 of 2021 (SC)]? 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 3.1 The Assessee is a partnership firm, which had filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 07.09.2012, declaring the income as Rs.570/-. Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was reopened on the basis of the information/documents found during the course of a search at the premises of M/s. National Shroff (Angadia Group), Rajkot. 3.2 As per the information/documents found during the course of search, the Assessee had entered into a financial transaction amounting to Rs.1,21,81,000/- with M/s. National Shroff. The assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was completed on 09.12.2019, declaring the total income of Rs.23,60,690/- by making addition of Rs.23,63,115/- on applying the G.P. rate of 19.40% on unexplained cash transaction of Rs.1,21,81,000/- made by the assessee with the National Shroff. 3.3 Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT, on examination of the assessment records, found that the Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.23,63,115/- by taking G.P. @ 19.40% of the total cash transactions of Rs.1,21,81,000/- made with National Shroff. Thus, the Ld. PCIT concluded that the Assessing Officer had not verified the cash transactions amounting to Rs.1,21,81,000/-. 3.4 Accordingly, the Ld. PCIT passed an order dated 02.02.2022, under Section 263 of the Act, cancelling the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act, with a direction to make a fresh assessment by making an inquiry and verification. 3.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has quashed the order under Section 263, holding that the issue under consideration had been examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 4. Mr. Karan Sanghani, learned Senior Standing Counsel submitted that the decision of the ITAT is erroneous and perverse because the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as the Assessing Officer has failed to properly examine the issue of cash transactions of Rs.1,21,81,000/- made by the assessee with M/s. National Shroff during the year under consideration and there is gross inadequacy in the inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer. Mr. Sanghani, learned Senior Standing Counsel referred to Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act to plead that the Principal CIT is well within his ambit to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and direct the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment after conducting necessary verifications. 5. We find that the learned ITAT has discussed the scope and ambit of the revision under section 263 of the Act as arising in the facts of the present case in the following manner :- “8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the issue under consideration had been examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of original assessment proceedings, wherein notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the partner of M/s National Shroff, Rajkot. On the basis of disclosures made by the partner of National Shroff and the documents analysed by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid amount represented unaccounted cash sales of the assessee during the impugned year under consideration. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the GP rate of assessee's business was declared @ 19.40% and accordingly, the Assessing Officer applied the aforesaid rate of 19.40% to the unaccounted sales amounting to Rs. 1,12,81,010/- and made addition of Rs. 23,63,115/-. In the 263 proceedings, the PCIT was of the view that the Assessing Officer erred in applying the GP rate of 19.40% to the above transactions, whereas the Assessing Officer should have added the entire amount as taxable income in the hands of the assessee. However, we are unable to agree with the view of the PCIT that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. These are for the following reasons. Firstly, the Assessing Officer had examined this issue in detail during the original assessment proceedings and had made due inquiries and detailed analysis of the material available on record in respect of transactions which was the subject of matter of revision in 263 proceedings. Secondly, on the basis of discussion with partner of National Shroff (Angadia), the Assessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,81,010/- represented cash sales/out of book sales carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration. Secondly, on the basis of discussion with partner of National Shroff (Angadia), the Assessing Officer was of the view that the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,12,81,010/- represented cash sales/out of book sales carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration. Accordingly the Assessing Officer calculated the GP rate @ 19.40% on the aforesaid cash sales. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue in detail during the course of original assessment proceedings and also had taken a view which was a legally plausible view. Looking into the instant facts, we are unable to accept the proposition that the entire explained cash transaction should be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee, since it is a settled principle of law only the real "income" may be subject to tax in hands of the asssessee and nor the entire receipts. Accordingly, the ld. Assessing Officer not erred in applying the GP rate of 19.40% after holding that the aforesaid sum represented unaccounted cash sales of assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer took one of plausible/ possible view looking into the instant facts of the case and the ld. PCIT cannot take recourse to proceedings u/s 263 of the Act only with a view to supplant/substitute his own view with that of the Assessing Officer on the ground that alternate view should have been taken by the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. PCIT cannot take recourse to proceedings u/s 263 of the Act only with a view to supplant/substitute his own view with that of the Assessing Officer on the ground that alternate view should have been taken by the Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), wherein it was held as under: "When an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law" The said view has also been held in a judgment of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Indo German Fabs IT Appeal No. 248 of 2012, dated 24-12-2014, in the following words: "Section 263 of the Act confers power to examine an assessment order so as to ascertain whether it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue but does not confer jurisdiction upon the CIT to substitute his opinion for the opinion of the Assessing Officer. The words prejudicial and erroneous have to read in conjunction and therefore, it is not each and every error in an assessment that invites exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act, but only orders that are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue,” 6. In such view of the matter, we find that the learned ITAT has rightly held that the Principal CIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and had rightly set aside the order dated 02.02.2022, passed by the Ld. PCIT. 7. We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid findings of the learned ITAT, which has applied the law and facts correctly in a series of decisions and therefore, we are of the opinion that no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.