Assessee claimed exemption under section 54F in respect of capital gains arising from sale of a long-term capital asset. Assessing Officer had issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1), specifically seeking details related to exemption claimed and assessee had responded with relevant documents, including explanations regarding nature and use of various properties-Upon consideration, Assessing Officer accepted claim and completed assessment under section 143(3).  Principal Commissioner invoked provisions of section 263 on ground that assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 54F as assessee owned more than one residential house other than new asset on date of transfer of original asset. Tribunal quashed order of Principal Commissioner passed under section 263 and held that Assessing Officer had applied his mind and framed assessment order and thus order passed by Assessing Officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue. High Court  held that findings of fact recorded by Tribunal in impugned order could not be termed as perverse or contrary to evidence on record and in overall view of matter, decision of Tribunal was correct and required no interference.SLP  of revenue dismissed. (AY. 2017-18)