A survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee and some loose documents/sheets were impounded. Assessee did not file return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 and the case was selected for compulsory scrutiny. Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 31.12.2016 by making an addition of Rs.64,10,599/-u/s 143(3) of the Act on account of difference in Cost of Construction as per valuation Report u/s 69 of the I.T.Act,1961 and also added Rs.1,29,10,000/-as unexplained share capital money appearing in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 assessed u/s.68 of the I.T. Act after reducing initial Share Application Money invested during the F.Y.2012-13. Assessee filed appeal with the ld. CIT(A) and was granted relief. Revenue appealed. The ITAT held that the law is now absolutely clear that unless the assessee is able to establish the identity of the subscribers, their creditworthiness as well as the genuineness of the transaction will be regarded as non-genuine for the purposes of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There are plethora of decisions consequent to the decision of Lovely Exports. It is also well-settled law that onus of proving credits in its book of accounts lies squarely on the assessee and such proof consists of proving the identity of the subscriber or creditor, capacity of such creditor or subscriber to make payment and also to prove the genuineness of the transaction. It is only when the assessee discharges this primary onus, that onus shifts to the Department. Merely establishing the identity of the creditor is not sufficient. (AY. 2014-15)