Dismissing the appeal the Court held that  the Tribunal had found that the proper course for the Assessing Officer was to investigate the creditworthiness of the creditor and to ascertain whether the transaction was genuine. However, the Assessing Officer had chosen a reverse mode by calling upon the assessee to show that the investor was creditworthy. The investor was none other than the son of the director. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had all the material before him and power to cause proper investigation. Moreover the factual matrix recorded by the Tribunal that the remittances were through the bank and as against a net income of USD 3 million, the remittances were only to the extent of USD 1 million. There was no reason to believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. The notice of reassessment and the addition to income under section 68 were not valid. Order of Tribunal is affirmed. (AY.2008-09)