Dismissing the writ the Court held that,the AO made inquiries with regard to the genuineness of the transactions of investment in share capital with premium in the assessee company. In the independent inquiry, the AO found that the investor companies despite service of notice did not appear; that in respect of some of them, their office was found closed; some other entities were found not existing at the given address; in some cases, the premises was found to be owned by some other person. Consequently, notices could not be served in these cases. Even when they responded, the investor companies did not provide justification for applying in equity shares in the assessee company at a premium of Rs.190 per share. Court held that mere production before the AO of the Account Books, or other evidence, from which material evidence could, with due diligence, have been discovered by the AO would not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the First Proviso to S.  147.  Court also looked in the investigation report produced by the revenue.   Court also observed that  the learned counsel for the petitioner continued to press the matter at the expense of judicial time, which could have been better utilised to deal with other pending cases. Accordingly the Court inclined to subject the petitioner to costs for unjustifiably pressing the petition beyond a point.  Accordingly the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1 lakhs to be paid to The Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust.(AY. 2012-13)