The Tribunal held that the directors of the investor companies who appeared before him in response to the notice and whose statements were recorded on oath, the Assessing Officer could not make an allegation that they had invested in such non-descript company. The investor companies had withdrawn money from companies where funds were invested earlier and they invested money in the assessee in the shape of preference shares. This prudent financial planning could not be viewed adversely and, rather, it supported the case of the assessee that there was source of funds invested by the investor company in the shares of the assessee. The assessee had discharged the onus cast on it producing the directors of the investor companies whose statements were recorded and who had admitted to had invested in the assessee. The directors had explained the source of such investment producing relevant details such as bank statements, copy of the Income-tax returns, audited accounts of the investor companies to substantiate the identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditor and genuineness of the loan transaction. When the assessee had substantiated the three ingredients of section 68 of the Act no addition could be made under section 68 of the Act.( AY.2013-14, 2014-15)