The Principal Commissioner initiated revision proceedings on the ground of failure by the Assessing Officer to   failed to consider three issues : the increase in share premium in light of provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, cash deposits made during the demonetisation period and bad and doubtful debts..On appeal the Tribunal held hat  although the assessee had received huge share premium, the Assessing Officer had failed to examine the issue on increase in share premium in light of provisions of section 56(2)(vii) of the Act by calling for specific details with regard to the price charged by the assessee and valuation of shares. He had simply accepted the explanation of the assessee without any verification with regard to price determined for allotment of shares. As regards huge cash deposits during demonetisation period, the assessee had deposited a sum of Rs. 19.53 crores in various bank accounts but the Assessing Officer had not verified the issue in light of standard operating procedure issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes for verification of huge cash deposits during that period. Similarly, the claim to deduction for provision for bad and doubtful debts written off was not verified with reference to provisions of section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had issued notice under section 142(1) in response to which the assessee had not furnished any details called for. The Assessing Officer had completed the assessment on the basis of available information on record and accepted the income declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, on the issue of increase in share premium, cash deposits during demonetisation period and deduction claimed towards bad and doubtful debts. The Principal Commissioner had rightly set aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.(AY.2017-18)