Tribunal held that the assessee had followed different treatment for leased assets for book purposes and for Income-tax purposes. In the show cause notice the Principal Commissioner had proposed to disallow the claim of the principal portion of the lease “after allowing depreciation”. Hence, the Principal Commissioner was well aware of the fact that the assessee had not claimed depreciation under the Income-tax Act. The assessee had furnished a reply with regard to the claim of principal component of lease payment and the treatment given in the books of account for leased assets. However, the Assessing Officer did not further probe the matter, which should have been made. Before the Tribunal also, the assessee could not immediately show that the assessee had not claimed depreciation on leased assets. It submitted that it would furnish the details and furnished a reconciliation statement. The very fact that the contention of the assessee could be understood only after examining the reconciliation statement would show that the Assessing Officer should have also examined the submission of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue in terms of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act.( AY.2012-13)