The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) for A.Y. 2009-10 on 28.03.2011. Search action was carried out at the premises of the assessee on 18.02.2013. The CIT exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act vide order dated 28.03.2013 as the AO had passed order without causing enquiries related to share capital and premium received thereon. The assessee challenged order passed u/s. 263 before the Tribunal. Meanwhile, the AO completed assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on 23.03.2015 after causing necessary enquiries u/s. 133(6) of the Act in respect of share capital and premium received by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the revisional order on 1.10.2019. In the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee, the Tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee that in light of the order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A the assumption of jurisdiction by the CIT was unsustainable. The Tribunal directed the CIT to consider the said contention raised by the assessee while passing order giving effect to the Tribunal. The CIT passed order dated 30.03.2021 ignoring the effect of the  order passed u/s. 153A of the Act.  Hence, the assessee filed further appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that where any proceeding is initiated in the course of assessment proceedings, having a relevant and material bearing on the assessment to be made and the result of such proceedings was not available with the Income-tax Officer before the completion of the assessment but the result came subsequently, the revising authority (PCIT) is entitled to look into the search material as it forms part of the assessment records of the particular assessment year. The Tribunal relying on the judgment of the High Court in the case of CIT v S. M. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. [190 ITR 404 (Cal)] held that the CIT has to examine all the records pertaining to the assessment year at the time of examination by him, which includes in this case the post-search assessment proceedings dated 23-3-2015 and thereafter only if he finds that the order passed by the AO on any issue is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, then only he may interfere by enhancing/modifying/cancelling the assessment order. The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed and held that the order of the Tribunal did not need any interference.  (AY.2009-10)