Dismissing the appeals of the assessee the Court held that, it was an admitted position that Moxdiam  was indulging in accommodation entries. The majority of the activities of Moxdiam  were of accommodation entries. It was the assessee which sought to assert a deviation from Moxdiam  regular activity to contend that in the assessee’s case it was not an accommodation entry, but a genuine loan. The burden on the assessee to show the genuineness of the entry was thus heavier. Such a burden could not be casually shifted. Merely because certain entries had been shown in the books of account of Maxdiam they could not be held to be conclusive and must be construed in the light of all surrounding circumstances. The genuineness of the loan transaction, financial capacity, and the surrounding circumstances were some criteria for determination in such matters. Further though sought to be retracted, the admission before the officers was a significant circumstance. Further, Bharat Jain had retracted his statement after two years and eight months. Such retraction was rightly held not bona fide. An admission made during a survey of such proceedings could be relied upon by the Assessing Officer. Two authorities and the Tribunal had evaluated each piece of evidence to conclude that this transaction was not a genuine loan transaction. The nature of the transaction would depend on the facts and circumstances. The view taken by the Tribunal on the assessment of evidence was not perverse, and merely because another view was possible by reappreciating the evidence, it could not give rise to a question of law as envisaged under section 260A. (AY. 2007-08, 2008-09)