Tribunal held that when the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for the reasons viz. (i). Large other expenses claimed in the P&L A/c.; and (ii). Low income in comparison High Loans/advance/Investment in shares, therefore, no infirmity could be attributed to the assessment framed by the AO on the ground that he had failed to deal with other issues which though did not fall within the realm of the limited reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny assessment. PCIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be permitted to traverse beyond the jurisdiction that was vested with the AO while framing the assessment. Revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised for broadening the scope of jurisdiction that was vested with the A.O while framing the assessment. As a matter of fact, what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the A.O had aptly confined himself to the issues for which the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed to his order, for the reason, that he had failed to dwell upon certain other issues which did not form part of the reasons for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS.  Revision order was quashed. (AY. 2014-15)