The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had examined all the issues raised by the Principal Commissioner in the revision orders during the assessment proceedings before framing the assessments under section 143(3) read with section 153A, the jurisdiction under section 263 was not validly invoked as the Assessing Officer had taken one of two possible views whereas, according to the Principal Commissioner, the other view ought to have been taken by the Assessing Officer. In the revision orders passed under section 263, the Principal Commissioner had nowhere given a concrete finding how the assessments framed by the Assessing Officer for the four years were erroneous in being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The jurisdiction was not available to the Principal Commissioner to revise the assessment merely because no reference or discussion had been made on the issues in the assessment order especially when the Assessing Officer had called for details and explanations from the assessee on all the issues proposed by the Principal Commissioner in his order passed under section 263, for which the assessee had filed written submissions with details and evidence. As the Principal Commissioner had not shown how the order framed by the Assessing Officer, after appreciating the evidence filed by the assessee, was contrary to the facts or not in accordance with law, he had not exercised his revisionary jurisdiction validly.(AY.  2013-14 to 2016-17)