The Tribunal held that though the Assessing Officer had from time to time sought for various details from the assessee and analysed the issues, such as the one related to payment of remuneration to Hindu undivided family, in respect of which there was an ongoing litigation in previous years, equally, there was an obvious omission on the part of the Assessing Officer in not carrying out the necessary reconciliation between total receipts under the head “Sales” with the party-wise accounts reflected as “job work” receipts from the parties. the disallowance on account of late payment of employees provident fund beyond the due date prescribed under the relevant Act. This issue was not analysed by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, especially when the language of the Act was clear and unambiguous. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer did not verify certain details which should have been done in order to assess the correct taxable income of the assessee. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner had not erred in law and facts in setting aside the assessment order under section 263 of the Act on the ground that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessment was accordingly set aside to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.(AY.  2010-11)