Held that the revisionary jurisdiction was exercised in respect of five issues but in the set aside proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted the reply of the assessee on three issues whereas only two issues were added to the income of the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had specifically called for information after issuing notice under section 142(1) of the Act and the assessee specifically replied and offered its explanation why these items did not warrant disallowance or addition and it was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had taken a plausible view which also appeared to be correct and therefore the Principal Commissioner could not invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to substitute his view for that of the Assessing Officer. The revisionary jurisdiction had been invalidly invoked and consequently the revision jurisdiction exercised by the Principal Commissioner is  quashed. The Principal Commissioner had simply exercised jurisdiction by giving directions to the Assessing Officer without pointing out how the view taken by the Assessing Officer was wrong thereby rendering the assessment passed by him erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.(AY.2013-14)