Allowing the appeal the Tribunal held that the revision was without jurisdiction because  in effect, the entire investment transaction fees was the subject matter of disallowance and confirmation by the Commissioner (Appeals) under section 14A of the Act and the very same transaction was sought to be considered and added by the Principal Commissioner in revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) had become final. Under clause (c) of the Explanation to section 263(1) of the Act, a matter which has already been considered and decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be the subject matter of revision by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner was seeking to revise the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had not made any addition despite the fact that he had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee which was to be taxed under section 56 of the Act. Hence, when the very basis of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer was ultimately not added by the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings, the primary reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment failed and such reassessment could not be treated as a valid order in the eyes of law. When an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in the eyes of law, the invalid and illegal order cannot be subject matter of section 263 proceedings. (AY. 2011-12)