The Delhi Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has upheld the revision order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the acceptance of Income Tax Return (ITR) was without adequate and sufficient enquiry.  the assessee, Ametek Builtech India Versus Pvt. while challenging the revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 of PCIT, submitted that the PCIT had erred in not appreciating the fact that during AY 2015-16 the assessee company had hardly started the business and the loans and advances from the group companies routed through banking channels was rightly accepted by the Assessing Officer as explained and genuine.  the assessee contended the Assessing Officer had made an independent inquiry under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act which was duly complied by the respective lender/creditors company and the Assessing Officer also verified and examined the books of accounts of assessee and thereafter accepted the same.

Therefore it was contended before PCIT that after being satisfied from the explanation, documentary evidence and other details filed by the assessee and also considering the reply of the lender/creditors company the Assessing Officer rightly found that the unsecured loans and advances are genuine transactions. After submitting said contentions, the assessee before the PCIT finally submitted that the assessment order could not be alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

However, not being agreed with the stand of assessee the PCIT invoked the provision of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act and directed the Assessing Officer to make a fresh denovo assessment order in terms of the directions given in the said revisionary order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. Zafarul Haque Tanveer, appeared on behalf of the revenue submitted that the revisionary Authority rightly held that the assessment order had been passed without making required enquiries and verification, which should have been made, while accepting unsecured loans and advances shown by the assessee in its financial accounts and balance sheet.

The two-member Bench of G.S Pannu, (President) and Chandra Mohan Garg, (Judicial Member) observed that the Assessing Officer passed a cryptic order accepting the returned income as nil as per declaration of assessee. Subsequently, the PCIT, on examination of assessment order in question as well as the assessment records noted certain things. The AO should have made further investigations so as to establish that the identity of the party, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the Loan transactions should have been established. The Bench therefore dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee holding that acceptance of return of assessee without any verification and examination was a clear case of inadequate and insufficient enquiry.