Held that   the Assessing Officer satisfied himself and had taken a plausible view and had considered the transaction of share premium and thereby the investment in the assessee-company made by the shareholders duly explained by the assessee. The requirement of proving the identity, capacity of the investor and genuineness of the transaction was proved by placing on record all the related proof of the investor. Based on the evidence before him the Assessing Officer had taken a view which is also one of the views and there was no clear finding of the Principal Commissioner why and how the view taken by the Assessing Officer was not legally correct. Revision order was quashed. (AY.2017-18)