Held, that  there was no order in so far as penalty proceedings were concerned. If there was no order, there was no question of its being erroneous or prejudicial. Whether the Assessing Officer had not initiated penalty proceedings at all or it was a case of wrong initiation of penalty, in both the situations the Principal Commissioner did not get jurisdiction at all because no order had been passed by the Assessing Officer till the time of examination by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 in the proceedings under examination. Passing of an order in those proceedings, was a condition precedent. Hence, there could not be any question of finding any error or prejudice therein under section 263. The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner could not create proceedings. If he was not permitted to direct the appellate authority he could not be permitted to substitute the jurisdiction or powers of only the Assessing Officer by his satisfaction by creating proceedings where none exist-the assessment having already been completed. According to the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 9/DV/2016, dated April 26, 2016 ([2016 383 ITR (St.) 21), a mere mention of the penalty in the assessment order is of no value. The notice is to be issued by the competent officer who is empowered under the Act. The only proceeding and consequent order, is the assessment order and not the penalty proceedings. here must exist some order, which is sought to be revised by the Principal Commissioner. If there is no order, the question of revising the order does not arise. He cannot pass an order under section 263 to pass an order, where there is none. (AY. 2012-13 to 2018-19)