Assessing Officer after verification found that transaction of purchase of shares by assessee was a sham transaction and that assessee could not discharge onus cast upon her to prove genuineness of transaction by producing documentary evidence and accordingly refused to entertain claim made by assessee under section 10(38) towards sale proceeds and made addition u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal CIT (A) affirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal the Tribunal without finding an error in approach of Assessing Officer or Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration of on appeal by the Revenue the Court held that  Tribunal was required to record reasons as to why matter should be remanded and as to why Tribunal could not decide factual issue on available material. Accordingly    the Court held that the assessee had not discharged the onus cast upon him to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee had entered into engineered transaction to generate artificial long term capital gains and the Explanation offered by the assessee regarding the credit of Rs. 15,86,250/-in its book was found to be unsatisfactory and therefore, the Assessing Officer held the same as unexplained cash credit which was added to the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 68 of the Act and assessed under the head Income from other sources. Order of Tribunal set aside and order of CIT (A) is restored.  (AY. 2012-13)