Held that the Assessing Officer had enquired about the issue of long-term capital gains on sale of flat and had discharged his duty and therefore, he could not be faulted. The allowing of interest expenditure was on a plausible view and could not be held erroneous or unsustainable in law. The assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner to invoke his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act was invalid and without jurisdiction. (AY.2016-17)