Tribunal held that the AO having called for the assessee’s explanation and documentation to substantiate the commodity trading transactions and accepted the assessee’s explanation that the commodity trading transactions were undertaken in his name by his employer along with its associate entity and disallowed the claim of loss, it is not a case where no examination has been carried out by the AO and, therefore, the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT on these issues is not sustainable; other issues were not part of initial show cause notice issued by the Principal CIT and, therefore, revisional order passed by the Principal CIT qua such issues is also not sustainable. As regards cash deposit, since there is nothing on record to show that the AO made any enquiry regarding the source of cash deposit made by the assessee with a co-operative society, it is clearly a case of no enquiry and, therefore, the order passed by the AO is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Delay in filing the appeal was condoned, considering the affidavit of the assessee.  (AY-2011-12 & 2012-13)