Tribunal held that the addition was not based solely on the statement of the persons. The Assessing Officer had relied on other materials. The statements of the persons who controlled the business of providing accommodation entries had been corroborated with the materials, surrounding circumstances and preponderance of probability. Where one leg of the sale transaction was bogus, in the same set of circumstances, the other leg of the transaction (purchase of share for capital loss) was bound to be bogus and not genuine. Thus, the transactions of the assessee of purchase and subsequent sale leading to short-term capital loss were not genuinely entered into. The short-term capital loss claimed by the assessee was disallowed.  however, the addition for short-term capital loss could not be made under section 68 because the addition had not been made for unexplained credit on sale of the shares during the year but in respect of the claim of bogus short-term capital loss. In the case of the assessee, the correct action would be disallowance of claim of the short-term capital loss of the assessee. However, mention of a wrong section in the assessment order would not render the entire assessment null and void. It is not the jurisdictional requirement for completing the assessment. The Assessing Officer had correctly acquired the jurisdiction over the case and the mistake was only under which section the addition should be made.(AY. 2015-16)