Share capital explained with documentary proof defeats section 68 addition when identity, creditworthiness and genuineness are established.

Share capital and share premium received from identified group companies were treated as explained where the assessee produced share application records, allotment details, confirmations, bank statements, audited financials, income-tax returns, PAN and incorporation documents, and the subscribers responded to notices and disclosed the source of funds. On those facts, the assessee discharged the burden under section 68 by establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness, and the Assessing Officer supplied no adverse material to show that the funds did not belong to the subscribers. The commentary also notes that, where the same share capital is assessed in the hands of the subscriber companies, addition in the recipient's hands would amount to double addition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of share capital and share premium received from group companies was sustainable where the assessee furnished documentary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, and the share applicants were themselves assessed to tax.

Analysis: The assessee produced the share application forms, allotment records, confirmations, bank statements, audited financial statements, returns of income, PAN details and incorporation documents of the share applicants. The share applicants replied to notices issued under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and disclosed the source of funds, while the assessee's directors also complied with summons issued under section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The share applicants were group concerns with common directors and shareholders, and their scrutiny assessments under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had already been completed. In these circumstances, the assessee discharged the burden cast under section 68, and the Assessing Officer brought no adverse material to discredit the evidence or establish that the funds actually belonged to the assessee. An addition in the assessee's hands would also amount to double addition after the same share capital had been taxed in the hands of the subscriber companies.

Conclusion: The addition under section 68 could not be sustained and was rightly deleted.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeal failed because the share capital transaction stood proved by the requisite material and no unexplained credit survived for addition in the assessee's hands.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee receiving share capital from identified corporate subscribers establishes the identity of the subscribers, the genuineness of the transaction and their creditworthiness through documentary evidence and tax-assessment records, the burden shifts to the Revenue and an addition under section 68 cannot be sustained merely for want of further adverse inference.

---