The assessee received the impugned gift from her son, who is a NRI. The details of the bank transfer were submitted to the AO, and these documents clearly established that the donor had sufficient funds to make the gift. With respect to the SEBI guidelines, the AR submitted that the SEBI order imposing the alleged ban was duly withdrawn. Despite this, for the purpose of making the addition, the AO primarily relied on information sourced from a Google search and local newspaper reports, without conducting any cross-verification or independent inquiry to substantiate the claims. The addition appears to have been made in a baseless manner, solely relying on unverified newspaper reports. Notably, the evidence provided by the assessee was not rebutted or discredited by the AO.The genuineness of the gift has not been questioned, and the donor’s financial capacity to provide the gift was sufficiently demonstrated. The donor’s bank account showed adequate funds at the time of executing the gift, thereby establishing creditworthiness.The AO appears to have undertaken verification through online searches and local media reports about the donor, but even these steps did not provide conclusive evidence to challenge the donor’s credibility. The actions of the assessee for investing the gifted amount in an Indian company and subsequently receiving and returning the funds to the donor are unrelated to the issue of addition under Section 68 of the Act.