Tribunal held that the AO on his second time conducted enquiry on the specific subject matter i.e., share capital and premium collected by the assessee-company. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT that the AO has not conducted enquiry is incorrect and is flowing from suspicion only. The allegation/fault pointed out by the Ld. Pr. CIT that the Second AO failed to collect total facts also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Ld. Pr. CIT has not spelt out in the impugned order what he meant by total facts or in the alternative when the assessee has discharged its onus, as required by the law in force. The Ld. Pr. CIT has exercised his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 without satisfying the condition precedent as stipulated in section 263 of the Act. Revision order is invalid and quashed. (AY.  2012-13)