There is a specific finding and reference of the deduction claimed by the assessee in the assessment order. Thus, the AO has taken a plausible view which is based on decision relied upon by the Authorised Representative of the assessee and there is no lack of enquiry on the part of the AO and he has applied his mind and allowed the claim to the assessee. He has examined the issue which is evident from the finding recorded in the assessment order. As the case was for this limited purpose, the same has been examined and verified by the AO as it emerges from the findings of the AO. The Principal CIT did not place on record any apparent error on the part of the AO to substantiate that the order passed by the learned AO is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. She only mentioned that the AO allowed deduction under s. 80P(2)(d) on the interest income received by the assessee from co-operative bank and thus, AO erred in allowing the deduction under s. 80P(2)(d) on such interest income. She has not pinpointed any enquiry which was required to be made but not made by the AO. There is no defect found from the enquiry that has been conducted by the AO. He collected the information based upon which he has allowed the claim of assessee and has verified the point raised in the limited scrutiny. The Principal CIT did not find any specific error or default of AO and thus there are no reasons in interfering with the view that has already been taken. Since the AO has clearly conducted the enquiry and Revenue did not pinpoint the error on the part of the AO, the order passed after due application of mind cannot be subjected to proceeding under s. 263. When the AO has conducted the required enquiry and not violated any of the conditions mentioned for revision of order as required by Expln. 2 of s. 263 the order passed by the AO could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. So long as the action of the AO cannot be said to be lacking bona fides, his action in accepting the explanation of the assessee cannot be faulted merely because it could have been lawful to make more detailed inquiries or because he did not write specific reasons for accepting the explanation. Merely because the AO did not write specific reasons for accepting the explanation of the assessee, same cannot be reason enough to invoke powers under s. 263, and non-mentioning of these reasons did not render the assessment order “erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.—Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO (2006) 101 TTJ (Mumbai) 1095 followed