Assessee, engaged in business of real estate development, filed its return of income which was accepted accordingly. Commissioner invoked powers vested under section 263 and observed that it was a case of lack of inquiry, which ought to have been made on part of Assessing Officer as issue of loans advanced to assessee by Sarvottam Securities Ltd and Upaj Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd  was not properly examined by Assessing Officer despite DDIT investigation report. Tribunal held that Assessing Officer had duly inquired into matter and PCIT had erroneously invoked jurisdiction under section 263  On appeal by the Revenue the Court held that  perusal of assessment order would reflect that it nowhere discussed, examined or evaluated said loan transactions. In light of findings from DDIT investigation report and assessment proceedings of Upaj Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd  that entities Sarvottam Securities Ltd  and Upaj Leasing and Finance Pvt Ltd    were shell companies of an entry operator, relevance of ascertaining genuineness and creditworthiness of transactions could not be undermined and since there was no discussion about aforesaid aspects in assessment order, revision order was valid .Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act would be applicable as the Explanation was inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 (2015) 373 ITR (St.) 25) with effect from June 1, 2015 and the case of the assessee belonged to the assessment year 2016-2017. The order of revision was valid. (AY. 2016-17)