Dismissing the appeal, that on the facts, the Tribunal was justified in relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court ( CIT v .Durga Prasad More ( 1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC)  / Sumati Dayal v.CIT ( 1995) 214  ITR 801 (SC) to reject mere paper work and look at the reality. The assessee in her statement under section 131 , could not give the exact purpose for which the loan was taken. She replied that the finances were managed by her husband and she had no idea about them. On being questioned whether she operated her bank account or had any ATM card or debit card and credit card, she had replied in the negative. Therefore, the assessee had no idea of any loan taken from PTPL, one of the 24 parties that appeared in her balance-sheet from whom loans were taken. The loan of Rs. 1 crore was allegedly repaid after nearly one year without any interest. It was not the case of the assessee that she had a personal or business relationship with PTPL or its directors. Merely because the transaction was squared in the next financial year that would not establish that the transaction was genuine and not bogus. The addition made under S. 68 was proper. ( AY.2014-15)