ARTICLES OF AN ADVOCATE: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal is right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who sustained an addition of Rs.50 lakhs under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the identity of the party and the genuineness of the transaction? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be concluded that the appellant has not discharged the primary onus cast on it by section 68 of the Act and no duty is cast on the assessing office to make further enquiries specially in the absence of any finding that the investor company was a mere name lender?” - When the existence of the creditor itself was not established by the appellant and when he has failed to discharge the primary burden, which lies on him, the question of conducting further enquiry or probe does not arise. Therefore, we do not see any substantial questions of law arising for consideration to admit the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As the appeal is dismissed, miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.