Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Court held that the allegations against the assessee were in respect of thirteen transactions. The Assessing Officer issued show-cause notice only in respect of one of the lenders. The assessee responded to the show-cause notice and submitted the reply. The documents annexed to the reply were classified under three categories namely : to establish the identity of the lender, to prove the genuineness of the transactions and to establish the creditworthiness of the lender. The Assessing Officer had brushed aside these documents and in a very casual manner had stated that mere filing the permanent account number details, balance sheet did not absolve the assessee from his responsibility of proving the nature of transaction. There was no discussion by the Assessing Officer on the correctness of the stand taken by the assessee. Thus, going by the records placed by the assessee, it could be safely held that the assessee had discharged his initial burden and the burden shifted on the Assessing Officer to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do. In more than one place the Assessing Officer used the expression “money laundering”. Such usage was uncalled for as the allegation of money laundering is a very serious allegation and the effect of a case of money laundering under the relevant Act is markedly different. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was utterly perverse and had been rightly set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal had rightly deleted the additions under section 68. (AY. 2015-16)