Held that the main reason why the Principal Commissioner exercised his power of revision was that though the case of the assessee was converted from limited scrutiny to full scrutiny, the Assessing Officer failed to examine these issues. The order-sheets revealed that the case was selected for limited scrutiny relating to the investigation for purchase and sale of shares. However, the issue relating to cash deposits and sundry creditors was not part of the limited scrutiny. The order-sheets further revealed that there was no mention in the order-sheet that the limited scrutiny was ever converted into full scrutiny. Neither was any proposal made by the Assessing Officer for converting limited scrutiny to full scrutiny nor was there any mention of any order of the higher authorities for converting limited scrutiny to full scrutiny. The Assessing Officer after asking the assessee to furnish the details relating to the transactions in purchase and sale of shares and after examining them had completed the assessment without making any addition and thereby accepting the returned income. There was no mention that the limited scrutiny was converted into full scrutiny. Neither had the Principal Commissioner mentioned in the order any document, whereby, the limited scrutiny was converted into full scrutiny, nor could the Department produce on file any such document or approval for converting the limited scrutiny into full scrutiny in the case of the assessee. Therefore, under the circumstances, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act is bad in law and accordingly the consequential proceedings were also bad in law. Tribunal also held that the assessee had not filed appeal against the section 263 order itself but had challenged the validity thereof in the consequential proceedings passed pursuant to the order passed under section 263 of the Act. Since the exercise of revision jurisdiction in this case by the Principal Commissioner was wrong and illegal, the consequential order passed under section 143(3) of the Act was also not sustainable in the eyes of law and was accordingly quashed. Followed, Valiant Glass Works P.Ltd  v. ACIT  (ITANo. 1612/Mim./ 2013, dated July 27, 2016,Westlife Development Ltd v.PCIT (2016) 49 ITR 406 (Mum)(Trib)   (AY.2014-15