During the assessment proceedings, the notice u/s 133(6) was sent to the investing companies, which were returned without any response. In response to the show cause notice issued to the assessee, the assessee submitted copies of the investing companies’ ITR, balance sheet, bank statements, and incorporation documents. The AO made an addition to the assessee’s income ignoring these submissions and merely because investing companies did not respond to the notices and without making any additional and independent enquiries. It was held that since AO did not bring anything to the contrary to  what was submitted by the assessee, the onus to prove the transaction was not genuine shifted to authorities. Hence, the addition made by the AO was not considered sustainable without any contrary evidence.   The registered valuer of the assessee applied one of the permissible valuation methods as per Rule 11UA, via. DCF method. AO did not concur with the method used and made the addition u/s 56(2)(viib). It was held that since the legislature itself allows any of the valuation methods and in the absence of any mechanism wherein the AO can adopt the other valuation method, the addition made was not sustainable.(AY. 2016-17)