Dismissing the appeal the Court held that; the mere reference to the adjournment petition received by the Commissioner after the date of hearing did not render the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 invalid on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. There was no material to show that the prayer for adjournment was made on December 10, 2013 or any other date prior thereto. The prayer for adjournment was not before the Commissioner on the day the hearing took place. Because on the date scheduled for hearing the assessee had not applied for adjournment, it could not take advantage of a post hearing prayer for adjournment, even though the Commissioner had referred to such prayer in his order. That the Commissioner had not outlined the manner in which the enquiry was to be conducted. The Assessing Officer had been directed to pass a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee and upon verifying the source of share capital including the share premium of all the subscribers and rotation of money through various hands so as to ascertain the true nature of the transactions which would bring to the fore, the reality of the transactions. His order gave a guideline on how the Assessing Officer should proceed with the enquiry and did not give any mandate in which manner he should pass the order. Such a direction did not attract the prohibitory provisions of section 119. The provision did not relate to the power and jurisdiction of the Commissioner. (AY. 2010-11)