Assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) in respect of Long term capital gain arising from sale of shares. Assessing Officer accepted same and completed assessment under section 143(3). Commissioner  passed the revision order on ground that Assessing Officer failed to make proper enquiry in respect of bogus claim of exemption of LTCG by sale of shares of penny stock. Tribunal set aside order passed under section 263 on ground that Commissioner had invoked his jurisdiction solely based upon a proposal received from Assessing Officer. On appeal the Court held that Principal Commissioner had applied its mind and came to prima facie conclusion that Assessing Officer should have treated entire credit as bogus and added back same under section 68 rejecting claim for exemption under section 10(38).It was not a case where Principal Commissioner solely proceeded based on report of Assessing Officer but on perusal of report had examined facts. Court held that Tribunal committed a manifest error in setting aside order passed under section 263 of the Act. Referred, PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (2022) 288 Taxman 403 /446 ITR 56 (Cal)(HC).(AY. 2014-15)