Held that once the assessee had submitted the documents relating to identity and creditworthiness of the subscribers and genuineness of the transaction, the Assessing Officer was duty-bound to conduct an independent enquiry to verify these. However, the Assessing Officer had not made any independent enquiry to verify the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee had furnished all the details and documents before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any discrepancy or insufficiency in the evidence and details furnished by the assessee before him. The assessee having discharged the initial burden upon it to furnish evidence to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the share subscribers and genuineness of the transaction, the burden shifted upon the Assessing Officer to examine the evidence furnished and make independent inquiries and thereafter to state on what account he was not satisfied with the details and evidence furnished by the assessee and confronting the assessee with them. The additions is  not warranted. That the Commissioner (Appeals) had not discussed anything about the material facts of the case. He had not pointed out any defect and discrepancy in the evidence and details furnished by the assessee but simply upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in a mechanical manner. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was a non-speaking order and was not sustainable at law.(AY.2012-13)