Held that   the Assessing Officer in examination of the details of all the scrips had chosen to disallow loss only in respect of three scrips. Hence, the Assessing Officer had taken a possible view on the matter. Merely because he had a different view on the same set of facts the Principal Commissioner could not substitute his view in place of that taken by the Assessing Officer. Tribunal also held that  the audit objection was part of the records of the Principal Commissioner at the time of his examination. From the show-cause notice issued by the Principal Commissioner and from the orders of the Principal Commissioner, it was clear that the Principal Commissioner had independently applied his mind for invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and had not merely been driven by the audit objection. The legal objection of the assessee was not tenable. (AY.2015-16)