Held that  the audit party had raised an objection on the very same subject of allowability of long-term capital loss and the Assessing Officer had not accepted it. The revision proceedings had been invoked by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act on the very same subject, based on the audit objection, which was nothing but borrowed satisfaction. Hence the revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act were bad in law. Merely because the Principal Commissioner was of a different view on the same issue, he could not invoke the revision jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Nor would Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act apply as adequate enquiry had already been made by the Assessing Officer in the original assessment proceedings. (AY.2013-14)