Held that  the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary enquiry on the issue of provision for non-performing assets and in the computation of total income under normal provisions, provision for non-performing assets debited during the year was added back, i. e., it had not claimed as deduction. For the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15 out of the total amount disallowed by the Assessing Officer or suo motu disallowed by the assessee of Rs. 71,73,06,600 the assessee claimed write back of provision for non-performing assets at Rs. 64,74,97,633 under normal provisions and of Rs. 46,75,71,359 under minimum alternate tax provision. These details were filed before the Assessing Officer who had passed the assessment order after conducting the necessary enquiries. Further, since the sum of Rs. 64,74,97,633 was already added by the assessee in the computation of income under normal provisions for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15, adding it in the current year would amount to double addition. The assessee had suo motu added the corporate social responsibility expenses in the computation of income filed with the revised return of income and offered it to tax. There was no justification in the finding of the Principal Commissioner invoking the revisionary proceedings and restoring it for examination of the Assessing Officer. The claim of additional depreciation, though made by the assessee in its original return, was subsequently withdrawn by the assessee in the revised return. The depreciation of only Rs. 15,53,08,565 was claimed in the revised return on the 80 per cent. block. In the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , the Assessing Officer had allowed depreciation of Rs. 15,53,08,565 as claimed by the assessee in the revised return and not Rs. 16,40,17,425 as claimed in the original return. However, the Principal Commissioner failed to appreciate the submissions filed by the assessee and held that the assessee had failed to completely disclose its true and correct income by non-furnishing of details as required under the provisions of the Act. The assessee had revised the depreciation claim and reduced it by Rs. 87,08,860 brought to a conclusion that there is  no prejudice caused to the Revenue.(AY. 2015-16)