Judgment :- R. Jayasimha Babu, J. The question referred to us is whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner dated March 25, 1987, made by him in exercise of his revisional power under section 263, the assessment year being 1982-83. The Commissioner having found that the assessee had suppressed the true value of the property which it had sold, that fact of suppression having come to light when the premises of the purchaser were raided, the Commissioner held that the assessment order was prejudicial to the Revenue and, therefore, set aside that order with a direction that the assessment be done afresh. He directed the Assessing Officer to redo the same in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the assessee to let in evidence or to rebut conclusions. That order of the Commissioner has been upheld by the Tribunal. We see no error in that order of the Tribunal. The conduct of the assessee clearly was such that the assessment order which had been made on the basis of the return which, records obtained from a raid on the premises of the purchaser disclosed, was incorrect, had certainly caused prejudice to the Revenue. Section 263 of the Income-tax Act confers a wide power on the Commissioner, while exercising powers of revision. The Commissioner, when acting under section 263 of the Act, when he finds that the order sought to be revised is one prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, he may, after giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard and after making such further inquiry, as he may deem necessary, pass such orders thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. In the case before the Commissioner, the extent of the prejudice that had been caused to the Revenue was quite substantial as the value of the property which the assessee had sold and from which it had reported capital gain to a limited extent was found to be much more than what it had reported a fact which came to light when the premises of the purchaser were searched. In the circumstances, therefore, the assessment that had been made certainly required to be redone. In the circumstances, therefore, the assessment that had been made certainly required to be redone. It was open to the Commissioner to set aside the assessment as a whole so that all the aspects of the matter would be dealt with by the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner had the discretion to set aside the assessment in whole or in part. The exercise of that discretion is not to be ordinarily interfered with unless the facts show that, that exercise of the discretion itself is required to be characterised as arbitrary. The facts before us do not justify any such inference of arbitrariness on the part of the Commissioner. We also do not see any prejudice having been caused to the assessee. The assessee has all the appellate and other remedies available to it against the assessment order made, subsequent to the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. Learned counsel for the assessee, relying upon certain observations contained in the decision of the High Court at Delhi in the case of Addl CIT v. J. K. D'Costa, submitted that minor errors in the assessment order would not warrant setting aside the whole of the order. The error here cannot be regarded as minor. It is in fact a substantial one of incorrect return and failure to report the true extent of the capital gain. The difference between what the assessee had reported and what according to the Commissioner would be payable if the material gathered at the time of the search of the premises of the purchaser is considered, is several lakhs of rupees. We also do not see any justification for curtailing the discretion vested in the Commissioner while acting under section 263 of the Income-tax Act and further limiting the nature of the order which he is empowered to make. The orders which he may make are those which are referred to in the section itself. If the observations made in the case relied upon by counsel are to be regarded as limiting the power of the Commissioner, with respect we are unable to subscribe to that view. We answer the question referred to us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.