Court held that the Tribunal had examined the financials of the two share subscribing companies and found that the source of investments by those two companies were also from the share capital and share premium raised by them while issuing their own shares to other closely held companies and those companies had no noticeable business activities. On consideration of the documents it was not satisfied with the genuineness of the transactions and also found that the assessee itself had claimed that there was no noticeable business activity during the year and had correctly concluded that the assessee had failed to establish the basic ingredients of identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the investors as required to be established under section 68. The amount of share application money received along with the premium which remained unexplained had been rightly added back to the income of the assessee under section 68.Court also observed that  the burden of proof on the assessee would include the proof of identity of the investor, the capacity of the investors to advance the money and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee has to prove these three factors by producing acceptable evidence and only then the onus shifts on the Department.   (AY. 2012-13)