The AO allowed the accumulated and unabsorbed losses . Commissioner was of the view that there was no application of mind by the AO while he allowed the claim made by the assessee under S. 72A of the  Act and that there were no reasons in support thereof. Accordingly he passed a revision order . The Tribunal held that the very fact that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction had sanctioned the scheme was sufficient and no further compliance was called for in regard to the conditions set out under S.  72A of  Act as the provisions of the  Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, Act overrode those of the 1961 Act, and confirmed the order of the AO allowing the claim of the assessee for the carry forward of loss. On appeal dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the view taken by the AO to the effect that the claim of the assessee under S.  72A of the Act was liable to be allowed in the light of the provisions of S. 32(2) of the 1985 Act and its interpretation by the Supreme Court was the correct one. S. 263 of the Act empowered the Commissioner to revise an order of assessment if it was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Both conditions were to be satisfied concurrently. The action of the Assessing Officer though prejudicial could hardly be termed “erroneous” in so far as the AO had followed the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Shaving products  Ltd  v. BIFR [1996] 218 ITR 140 (SC). Thus in the absence of concurrent satisfaction of the two conditions under S.  263 of the Act, the action of the Commissioner was contrary to the statute and was therefore to be set aside.( AY. 2004-05, )  (AY.2005 -06)