Section 68 and section 40(a)(ia) principles: primary evidence, tax compliance verification, and rejection of books govern the disallowance outcome.

Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance required fresh verification of whether the payee had included the payment in its return and paid tax, so the matter was remanded for factual examination and the disallowance would fall if the statutory conditions were met. Section 68 additions for share capital and unsecured loans were unsustainable because the assessee had produced confirmations, PAN, bank statements, audited accounts and replies to notices, thereby discharging the initial burden on identity, creditworthiness and genuineness; the additions were therefore deleted. An ad hoc expenditure disallowance based on self-made vouchers was also unsustainable because the books of account had not been rejected, and the deletion was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) required fresh examination in light of the second proviso and the recipient's tax compliance. (ii) Whether the addition made under section 68 in respect of share capital and unsecured loans was sustainable when the assessee had furnished confirmations, PAN details, bank statements, audited accounts and responses to notices. (iii) Whether the ad hoc disallowance of expenditure was justified without rejection of the books of account.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) required fresh examination in light of the second proviso and the recipient's tax compliance.

Analysis: The amendment relating to section 40(a)(ia) and section 201 was treated as curative in nature and retrospective. The relevant inquiry was whether the payee had included the amount in its return and paid tax thereon. As the factual verification had not been completed at the assessment stage, the matter called for verification by the Assessing Officer.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and the disallowance would stand deleted if the statutory conditions were satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition made under section 68 in respect of share capital and unsecured loans was sustainable when the assessee had furnished confirmations, PAN details, bank statements, audited accounts and responses to notices.

Analysis: The assessee produced material to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share subscribers and loan creditors. Notices issued to them elicited replies with returns, balance sheets, bank statements and confirmations, and the transactions were through banking channels. The reasoning applied the settled principle that once the assessee discharges the initial onus, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer, who cannot draw an adverse inference without effective enquiry from the creditor's assessing authority where appropriate.

Conclusion: The additions under section 68 were not sustainable and the deletion by the first appellate authority was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether the ad hoc disallowance of expenditure was justified without rejection of the books of account.

Analysis: The disallowance was made on an estimated basis on the ground of self-made vouchers, but the books of account had not been rejected. In the absence of rejection of books, an arbitrary lump-sum disallowance was not permissible; item-wise disallowance, if warranted, was the proper course.

Conclusion: The ad hoc disallowance was unsustainable and its deletion was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance, save for a remand on the section 40(a)(ia) verification aspect, and the remaining additions and disallowances were not restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A section 68 addition cannot survive where the assessee has discharged the initial burden by establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness through primary evidence and banking records, and an estimated disallowance cannot be made without first rejecting the books of account.

---