“8. In the present case, from the orders of the authorities below as well as from the paper book filed by the assessee before us, we are unable to see any document such as copies of PAN, return of income, balance sheet, confirmation, bank statements of investor company M/s Technicare Biomed India Pvt. Ltd. discharging the onus as per the requirement of section 68 of the Act. We also note that the assessee has successfully demonstrated that almost the entire amount received from M/s Technicare Biomed India Pvt. Ltd. was invested in Rockland Hospitals Ltd. and the AO made addition u/s 68 of the Act in the hands of M/s Rockland Hospitals Ltd. on account of two investments including the investment made by the assessee. These documents only establish the use of amount received by the assessee, but, these facts are not capable to discharge the onus lay on the shoulders of the assessee in this regard under provisions of section 68 of the Act. The theory of conduit company is not acceptable as, for being a conduit company, the assessee is duty bound to establish that the company from whom it received the amount and the company in which it invested the same amount were of the same group and it was merely an intermediary or conduit company. In the present case the assessee has miserably failed to substantiate the identity, capacity and credit worthiness of the investor M/s Technicare Biomed India Pvt. Ltd. as well as the genuineness of the transaction. Except name, no details of PAN No., address, bank statement, ledger, confirmation and supporting copies of financial statements of investor M/s Technicare Biomed Pvt. Ltd. have been filed by the assessee. At the cost of repetition, we may also point out that the assessee has shown that the amount invested by the assessee company in Rockland Hospitals Ltd. has been added in the hands of recipient M/s Rockland Hospitals Ltd. u/s 68 of the Act, but, ultimate factual position of that addition is missing. Therefore, the benefit of the order of the ITAT in the case of Sukumar Enterprises Limited (supra) and other orders pertaining to AY 2014-15 is not available to the assessee in the present case as, in that case, it was established that the recipient and ultimate beneficiary company has paid taxes, etc., on the impugned amount. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the contentions of the ld. Counsel of the assessee in this regard and hence, are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below. Consequently, the
