Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that  when the notices were issued to the shareholding companies under section 133(6) of the Act they were returned unserved, and the companies were found to be non-existent followed by the fact that the inspector too came out with a report itself that the companies did not exist. The investment which was made by two companies their proof of identity of creditors and the capacity of creditors to advance money and genuineness of transaction fell apart when the company was found to be non-existent. The assessee having failed to discharge the onus of section 68 of the Act, no question of law arose. The addition  was affirmed.  (AY.2014-15]