In the present case, Hon’ble appellate tribunal held that the assessee had furnished replies to the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act as well as income tax returns and assessment orders passed for the respective companies who had invested in the assessee company. The AO has not raised any doubt with respect to the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee. Thus, the assessee had discharged the onus cast upon it to prove the genuineness of transaction and therefore, addition made under section 68 of the Act is not justiifed. Hon’ble appellate tribunal further held that an isolated transaction by one of the alleged entry operators in one of the investor companies would not taint the entire share transaction in the assessee-company in the absence of corroborative material. The funds were received, inter alia, from the sale of equity shares of some other companies by these investors or from the refund of advances for the purchase of shares. Thus, the assessee had also proved the source of source of the investors to satisfy the test of creditworthiness of the investor and genuineness of the transaction. (AY .2010-11)