Allowing the appeal the Court held that the circulars and instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes are binding on the Department the conclusion of the Principal Commissioner that it was necessary to maintain separate books of account was not sustainable. The finding of the Principal Commissioner that the Assessing Officer had not made any enquiry was absolutely vague. It was clear from the assessment order under section 143(3) that the Assessing Officer did conduct an enquiry and call for details, that the details were produced and that thereafter, the assessment was completed. Therefore, the finding of the Principal Commissioner in that regard was erroneous, and consequently, assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act was not sustainable. The Tribunal while testing the correctness of the order passed by the Principal Commissioner had also not dealt with the issues, which were specifically pleaded by the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal was also erroneous. The order of revision was not valid. The Central Board of Direct Taxes by Circular No. 1 of 2013, dated January 17, 2013 ([2013] 350 ITR (St.) 34). (AY.2010-11)