Principal Commissioner observed discrepancies in assessment records, including addition of fixed assets with claimed depreciation, commission payment without TDS deduction, and a deduction under section 80JJAA.  Consequently, Principal Commissioner proposed revised assessment under section 263, asserting that Assessing Officer did not verify these aspects.  In response to show cause notice, assessee argued that assessment was conducted with due verification and application of mind by Assessing Officer.  However, Principal Commissioner remained unsatisfied, deeming assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.  On appeal to Tribunal held that  the  Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries during assessment proceedings, as evident from notice issued under section 142(1) and replies provided by assessee.There was no flaws in submissions made by assessee in response to notice under section 263. Additionally, report in Form 10DA for claiming deduction under section 80JJAA was duly filed without specific defects highlighted by Principal Commissioner. Since there was proper verification and application of mind by Assessing Officer while framing assessment under section 143(3), revision order would not be sustainable.(AY. 2018-19)