Held, that the assessee filed replies of all 17 companies to the notice issued under section 133(6) of the Act. In order to substantiate the identity of these companies, the assessee also furnished Income-tax returns filed by these companies for the year under consideration and placed on record the assessment orders passed under section 143(3) of the Act in respect of some of these companies. Further, in the case of three companies in whose case notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act were returned, scrutiny proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act were concluded either in the preceding or subsequent years. Moreover, despite the return of the notices, the Assessing Officer did not raise any other objection or doubt questioning the identity of these investors. Thus no material had been brought on record to deny the claim made in the replies to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act. The fact that some of the directors were common in some of the companies that have invested in shares of the assessee had not been shown to have led to the manipulation and the identity of such directors had not been questioned. There was no prohibition on these companies having the same auditors. No evidence or material had been brought on record by the Department that the assessee in any manner controlled the affairs of these companies. The allegations in the assessment orders of those companies were not in respect of investment made in the assessee-company nor did the assessment orders pertain to the year under consideration. The assessee has placed on record the source of funds received by all 17 companies for investing in the shares of the assessee. 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. There was no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).(AY. 2010-11)