Genuineness of share transactions upheld where assessee failed to discharge primary burden and surrounding circumstances showed untrustworthiness.

In determining the genuineness of share transactions, the assessee bears the primary burden to prove that the transactions were real, and the Assessing Officer may assess the evidence on the basis of human probabilities. Mere production of some material is not conclusive if the surrounding circumstances show the claim is untrustworthy, even without independent rebuttal evidence from the department. On that basis, the Tribunal's factual finding that the transactions were non-genuine was upheld, and the challenge based on perversity was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was in holding the assessee's share transactions to be non-genuine and in sustaining the addition, and whether such finding was perverse.

Analysis: In determining genuineness of a transaction, the primary burden lies on the assessee to establish the reality of the transaction. The Assessing Officer is entitled to examine the evidence on the touchstone of human probabilities, and mere production of some evidence is not conclusive if the material is not trustworthy. Even in the absence of independent rebuttal evidence from the department, a transaction may be rejected as not genuine where the surrounding circumstances and probabilities so indicate. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on appreciation of facts and did not suffer from perversity.

Conclusion: The finding that the share transactions were not genuine was upheld, and the contention that the Tribunal's order was perverse was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In deciding genuineness of a transaction, the assessee bears the primary burden of proof, and the finding may be tested on human probabilities; a factual finding reached on that basis is not perverse merely because the department led no further evidence.

---