The assessee bank made provision for bad debts and claimed same to be allowed as deduction under S.36(1)(vii) of the Act. PCIT held that the assessee was allowed excess deduction for the reason that deduction under S. 36(1)(vii) was allowed to the assessee without appreciating the requirement of provisions of section 36(2)(v) together with first proviso to S.36(1)(vii) accordingly the order was set aside.| On appeal the Tribunal held that ,the power to exercise suo motu revision in terms of section 263(1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and the same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein, viz. (1) the order is erroneous and (2) by virtue of the order being erroneous, prejudice has been caused to the interest of revenue, exists. Thus, an order of assessment passed by an ITO should not be interfered with only because another view is possible. Similarly, if in given facts and circumstances of the case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by the Assessing Officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by the Commissioner.  Accordingly in the present case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by the AO  That view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by the Commissioner hence the order passed by the  CIT is set aside . (AY. 1997-98, 1998-99)