Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that, even after invoking the provisions of S.  45(2) of the Act, there would be no change in the tax liability of the assessee and hence the order passed by the AO cannot be said prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.  Tribunal also held that it is undisputed proposition of law that for exercising the power u/s 263 of the Act, the Commissioner has to satisfy itself that the order passed by the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Without satisfaction of the twin conditions that the order passed by the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the provisions of S. 263 cannot be invoked. Therefore, in the case in hand, when there will be no Revenue loss even if provisions of S.  45(2) is applied then in such a situation the Commissioner is not allowed to exercise its power u/s 263 of the Act merely because the AO has accepted the capital gains declared by the assessee. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned ex-parte order passed by the PCIT without proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without establishing the order of the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is not sustainable in law and consequently the same is quashed and set aside.(AY. 2015-16)