“27. To conclude, as the ld. AR has himself conceded that unless the transaction as a whole is questioned as a 'farce' , provisions of section 68 of the Act could not have been invoked with regard to the receipts shown in the nature of income. We find that the tax authorities have examined the whole transaction on that aspect only and at this stage, based on our discussion above, there is no reason to differ from the same. The provisions of Section 68 of the Act rests initial burden on the assessee to explain the genuineness of the transaction. It being a deeming income provision, the burden needs to be sufficiently discharged, at least on the preponderance of probability. Here before us there are concurrent findings of two quasi- judicial authorities against the assessee by raising valid concerns about the genuineness of the transaction. Before us also, the same set of arguments and explanations have been raised , which, we also find prima facie lacking the strength to stand on its own legs. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee has no prima facie case to contend that as for the purpose of section 68 of the Act, it had prima facie discharged its burden or that provisions of section 68 of the Act have been patently wrongly invoked.
