The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner was not satisfied with the enquiries made by the Assessing Officer, he should have conducted the enquiries himself to substantiate the findings that the assessment orders were erroneous, instead of simply setting aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and directing him to conduct further enquiries. In fact, as there was due application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer, who had conducted adequate and proper enquiries, the orders passed under section 263 had no feet to stand on; further, where no show-cause notices were issued on account of unsecured loans, the Principal Commissioner could not have exercised his jurisdiction to set aside the case. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 263 were bad in law and, therefore, to be quashed for the reason that the Assessing Officer had made adequate enquiries and the Principal Commissioner had not conducted any independent enquiry on his own before coming to the incorrect conclusion that the assessment orders were erroneous for being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. (AY.  2016-17)