Issue of share capital and accommodation entries: investments treated as camouflage and revenue assessment sustained.

Issue concerned whether large inbound share subscriptions were genuine or mere camouflage/accommodation entries. The HC found concentrated, short-span investments by unrelated persons, rapid retransfers to directors at loss, and bank deposits routed through account-payee cheques, concluding the assessee failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of subscribers and the genuineness of transactions; consequence: the transactions were treated as accommodation/camouflage and decision rendered for the revenue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition of Rs.3,43,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating the share subscriptions as genuine investments rather than accommodation entries.

Analysis: The matter involved examination of (a) identity, (b) genuineness of the transaction, and (c) creditworthiness of the share subscribers as required by the legal tests under Section 68. Material placed on record by revenue included investigation-wing findings identifying a network of entry providers, bank account statements showing cash deposits followed by issuance of cheques to the assessee, statements implicating the entry operator group, failure to serve or produce multiple alleged subscribers and rapid purchase and resale of shares at steep discounts after allotment at high premiums. Precedents cited distinguished public-issue and bona fide private-placement scenarios where statutory share application records and successful verification may discharge the assessee's initial onus. Where incriminating material links the assessee with entry providers and the assessee fails to produce or make available subscribers for verification, mere production of PANs, income-tax returns or uniform affidavits is insufficient to discharge the onus. The surrounding facts here -- close timing of allotments, identical/serial affidavits, inability to summon subscribers, bank evidence of cash deposits routed into share payments, and resale back to promoters at a nominal price -- supported characterization as camouflage accommodation entries and warranted adverse inference and further inquiry by the revenue.

Conclusion: The deletion of the addition of Rs.3,43,00,000/- under Section 68 is set aside and the addition is sustained in favour of the Revenue; the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent-Assessee.

---