The A.O. caused enquiry related to credits of Rs.19,35,39,366 appearing in the assessee’s books by issuing notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act  to bank that apart from the assessee, five other concerns are operating from the same address but the Ward Inspector upon a field visit reported that none of them were found to be operating from the addresses. Notices issued to three parties u/s. 133(6) of the Act returned unserved. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was repeatedly asked to provide details of the Indian clients to whom the services of ad or film shooting, were provided by the overseas entities but the assessee did not provide any details in this regard to substantiate its claim establishing the genuineness of the receipts from Indian clients. Therefore, for failure of the assessee to provide necessary details in support of credits appearing in the books, bank statements and other issues like deposits in cash during demonetization, the A.O. completed the assessment by making additions u/s. 68 and 69A of the Act.  Except for the protective additions made in the hands of the assessee, the CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the A.O. On further appeal, for want of representation and failure to lead any evidence in support of credits appearing in the books, the Tribunal upheld the additions sustained by the CIT(A). (AY. 2017-18)