Tribunal held that, the aim and object of introduction of aforesaid Explanation by Finance Act, 2015 was explained in 19/2015 [F.NO.142/14/2015-TPL], dt. 27-11-2015. A bare reading of the circular gives a somewhat impression that the Explanation 2 was inserted for the purpose of providing clarity on the expression ‘erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue’. The Explanation being clarificatory would not lead to dilution of the basic requirements of section 263(1). The provisions of section 263 although appears to be of a very wide amplitude and more particularly after insertion of Explanation 2 but cannot possibly mean that recourse to section 263 would be available to the revisional authority on each and every inadequacy in the matter of inquiries and verification as perceived by the Revisional Authority. The revisional action perceived on the pretext of inadequacy of enquiry in a plannery and blanket manner must be desisted from. The object of such Explanation is probably to dissuade the Assessing Officer from passing orders in a routine and perfunctory manner and where he failed to carry out the relevant and necessary inquiries or where the Assessing Officer has not applied mind on important aspects. However, in the same vain where the preponderance of evidence indicates absence of culpability, an onerous burden cannot obviously be fastened upon the Assessing Officer while making assessment in the name of inadequacy in inquiries or verification as perceived in the opinion of the Revisional Authority. It goes without saying that the exercise of statutory powers is dependent on existence of objective facts. The powers outlined under section 263 are extraordinary and drastic in nature and thus cannot be read to hold that an uncontrolled, unguided and uncanalised powers are vested with the competent authority. The powers under section 263 howsoever, sweeping are not blanket nevertheless. The Assessing Officer cannot be expected to go to the last mile in an enquiry on the issue or indulge in fleeting inquiries. The action of the revisional commissioner based on such expectation requires to be struck down.  On facts, in the course  of scrutiny assessment, AO disallowed a part of business advancement expenses after verifying bills and vouchers. After examining  manufacturing process in business units deduction u/s 80IC and 80IE was allowed .  In the course of original assessment proceedings the AO had excluded patent related expenses , expenditure on  which the weighted deduction was claimed. Clinical research, labour and job work charges etc, out of R& D expenditure  Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that,  revision for  further disallowance, re-determined claim of deduction under S. 80-IC and 80-IE  and weighted deduction(R& D expenditure ).Revision is held to be  not justified when in the Course of original assessment the AO has examined all the claims. (AY. 2014-15)