Held that details required and obtained by the AO by way of notices clearly showed that the AO had caused sufficient inquiry on the aspect of the sale of the residential house. No intervening facts between the sale deeds were brought on record by the Pr. CIT to reach a different conclusion that what was sold by the assessee was not what he acquired. On his inquiries and perusal of the sale deeds, the AO satisfied himself with the state of affairs obtained through those documents. The Pr. CIT also did not cause any inquiry as to the event after the sale deed to entertain any doubt about such physical features. There was no substance in the revision order to conclude that the assessment order was erroneous. To invoke the jurisdiction u/s. 263, the twin conditions of error in the order and also prejudice to the interests of the Revenue must be established independently. Since the assessment order was not erroneous, the revision order was not sustainable.(AY. 2015-16)