1. Search was made on the assesse.
2. Assessment u/s 153A after summoning and recording his statement u/s 131 was made and NIL return was accepted.
3. Later CIT sought to revise order because of lack of inquiry because certain documents were received by AO from Investigation Wing at the fag end of the assessment.
4. The reply furnished by the Assessee was not found satisfactory, as they had denied to have paid any interest other than as recorded in their books of account, whereas the seized documents showed interest payment @ 40% p.a
5. AO said that differential amount of interest paid could not be made due to oversight/heavy workload. I deeply regret for the error.
6. Department placed reliance on CIT v Amitabh Bachhan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC).
7. Delhi High Court however distinguished that case in Amitabh Bhachan case facts that there was withdrawl of claims during assessment on which on enquiry was made . The Amitabh Bachan case can not be applied to other cases of inadequate inquiry
8. Where the Assessee has in fact furnished the details that are available with him along with explanation to the queries raised by the AO, to permit the exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction only on the ground that the AO did not have sufficient time to verify the details furnished would be unfair to the Assessee.
9. The PCIT must be satisfied, after application of his mind, that the order of the AO was erroneous with respect to the material made available to him.