Assessment was completed under S.  143(3) of the Act . PCIT  invoked revision jurisdiction under section 263 on four grounds; firstly, as per proviso provided to S.  36(1) (viia) and 36(1)(vii) deductions towards bad debt written off was allowed over and above amount of provision for bad debts in books of account, as on first date of financial year; secondly, since assesee was maintaining its account on mercantile basis, advance payment towards contribution to gratuity fund which did not pertain to relevant assessment year, was not allowable in view of matching principles; thirdly, penalty payment made by assessee for violation of KYC norms to RBI would not be allowed under S.  37(1) and; lastly, exact liability as regards provision for wage arrears made by assessee, was not ascertainable, thus, same was not allowable . On appeal the Appellate Tribunal held that all four issues questioned by PCIT were  thoroughly examined by AO during  assessment proceedings  Assessee had also furnished a detailed reply to questions raised by AO regarding all four issues and after considering relevant facts and explanations furnished by assessee AO had  chosen to accept claim of assessee. Accordingly  it could not be said that AO had  failed to carry out required enquiries which ought to be carried out in accordance with law . Accordingly revision order was quashed .   ( AY. 2014 -15)