Held that the Principal Commissioner had not controverted the detailed reply filed by the assessee to show how the claim was not acceptable. Further, this was not a case of no enquiry but one where due enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and the claim was accepted with due application of mind. Simply because further queries were not raised or the fact that the issue was not dealt with in the assessment order, that would not make the order erroneous. Moreover, no discrepancy had been pointed out either by the Assessing Officer or by the Principal Commissioner in the purchases made by the assessee or stocks maintained by the assessee. The only allegation in the revision order was that certain items claimed by the assessee could not be held to be revenue in nature since this would be allowed only when the assessee was a going concern. No other doubt, whatsoever, had been raised. The assessee had made a claim under section 36(1)(vii) and considering the nature of certain items, made partial claim under section 28 read with section 37 of the Act which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the revision of the order was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was liable to be quashed.(AY. 2017-18)