Assessee’s case was selected for limited scrutiny on two issues; unsecured loans and credit card payments. Assessing Officer raised relevant queries. Assessee explained details of alleged unsecured loans and filed PAN data of creditors and submitted other details. Further, assessee had also submitted details of credit card payments. Assessing Officer was satisfied with the quality of evidence submitted by assessee and accepted return of assessee. PCIT invoked revisionary proceedings and raised three issues, namely, an increase in opening capital balance, credit card payments, and unsecured loans. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner had committed an error in construing that the case was selected for complete scrutiny in the show-cause notice issued under section 263, whereas, there was no detail available on record which suggested that a limited scrutiny case was converted into full scrutiny. Tribunal held that the foundation of the order of the Commissioner was based upon wrong facts, the Commissioner having erred in taking cognisance under section 263, and the order was quashed. (AY. 2017-18)