Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had duly considered the documents since a specific disallowance had been made, being conscious of the fact that certain arbitration income was not offered to taxation by the assessee. The assessment orders for earlier years were specifically called for by notice under section 142(1) and these were furnished by the assessee. Upon perusal thereof, the Assessing Officer specifically took note of the fact that similar disallowance was made in earlier years and, therefore, he chose to make similar disallowance during the year under consideration. The computation of income filed by the assessee clearly demonstrated that the arbitration awards received during the year were offered to tax whereas interest on the arbitration award was reduced while computing the taxable income. The revenue recognition policy followed by the assessee to recognise the interest income was fully disclosed in the notes to the account. The position taken by the assessee to recognise the interest income was accepted by the Assessing Officer who was well conscious of the fact that certain arbitration income was not offered to tax. Hence, there was application of mind by the Assessing Officer on the issue of interest on arbitration award and he chose not to make any addition thereof.  The view was taken in the matter by the Assessing Officer could not be said to be contrary to law, perverse or unsustainable in law, in any manner and was a possible view keeping in mind the rule of consistency. Hence, the assessment order could not be termed erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue under section 263 as held by the Principal Commissioner. The action of the Assessing Officer was in consonance with the position accepted by the Revenue in earlier years and, therefore, it could not be said that the order was not in accordance with law. In such a case, the action of the Principal Commissioner in invoking jurisdiction under section 263 could not be sustained in the eyes of law.( AY.2014-15)