Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction on ground that assessee issued certain shares during relevant assessment year with a share premium of Rs. 140 and face value of Rs. 10 totalling to Rs. 150 per unit of share and Assessing Officer had not made enquiry in respect of valuation of shares .  According to Commissioner, while applying formula under rule 11U and 11UA of Income-tax Rules, as per section 56 (viib) valuation of shares would come to only Rs. 27 and, thus, income to that extent had escaped assessment . Tribunal held that in section 56 (viib) two methods are envisaged for calculating fair value of shares and out of two values thus computed value whichever is higher should be adopted; and that in instant case, Assessing Officer, on being satisfied with computation of fair value of shares, had accepted value of Rs. 150 per share which was higher than Rs. 27 as calculated by Commissioner applying rules 11U and 11UA .   On facts if Commissioner had to hold view of Assessing Officer to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to revenue he was required to conduct enquiries and record a finding that assessee’s calculation of fair market value of Rs. 150 was unsustainable in law and Commissioner having not done so, action of Assessing Officer, who had conducted enquiry on issue and called for documents and after examination had not drawn any adverse view against assessee, could not be held to be erroneous well as prejudicial to revenue .  (AY. 2013-14)