Held that the Tribunal had found that the Commissioner was not justified in assuming jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that no enquiries had been conducted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had issued queries regarding investment in unlisted equity shares to which the assessee had responded and had submitted all the details including the details of the shares purchased, the entities from whom they were purchased, copies of the bank accounts evidencing payments of consideration and the computation of the book value of the shares. The Assessing Officer had applied his mind to such information and had made the assessment. The Tribunal had rightly held that enquiry had been conducted by the Assessing Officer and had accordingly, set aside the order of the Commissioner under section 263. No question of law arose. That the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 indicated that the net tax effect of the order was below the monetary limit specified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Although the Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer he had also quantified the income which according to him had been under assessed. That the only explanation for the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal was due to administrative reasons beyond the control of the Principal Commissioner. Each day of delay had to be explained and the Principal Commissioner had not given sufficient explanation for the delay of 109 days. The Principal Commissioner had casually termed the delay of 109 days as a delay of only of “few days” which indicated the lack of seriousness on the part of the Department in adhering to the timeline stipulated under the Act. The delay was not condoned. (AY.2015-16)