Burden of proof under Section 68 shifts once documentary evidence establishes identity; addition deleted for lack of verification.

Application of Section 68 concerned whether share capital and premium credit can be sustained where the assessee produced documentary evidence of identity, source of funds and creditworthiness for individual and corporate subscribers; tribunal applied the principle that an assessee who discharges the initial evidential onus by producing credible documents shifts the burden to the revenue to undertake specific enquiries and point out defects. The authorities below relied on non appearance of some subscribers without identifying deficiencies or performing further verification; consequence: the addition of the credited amounts was deleted and the appeal allowed for the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the addition of Rs. 1,49,10,000/- made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (share capital and share premium) can be sustained where the assessee filed documentary evidence to explain identity and creditworthiness of share applicants and genuineness of transactions.

Analysis: The issue concerns application of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dealing with cash credits and the allocation of evidential burden. The assessee furnished detailed documentary material for individual and corporate subscribers, including income-tax returns, audited financial statements, bank statements, confirmations and MCA records, intended to establish identity, source of funds and creditworthiness. Relevant precedent holds that once the assessee discharges the initial onus by producing documentary evidence establishing identity and genuineness, the burden shifts to the revenue to undertake further enquiries and point out specific discrepancies; adverse inference cannot be drawn solely from non-appearance of third-party directors without the Assessing Officer indicating defects in the evidence. The authorities below upheld the addition primarily because some subscribers did not appear personally; however, they did not specify deficiencies or undertake further verification despite having documentary material available.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,49,10,000/- under Section 68 is deleted and the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee.

---