TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the addition made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of share capital and share premium was sustainable where the assessee had furnished PAN, confirmations, bank statements, share application records, ROC filings and financial statements of the investor companies, but the revenue relied on non-compliance of summons, an alleged entry operator statement and the charging of high share premium.
Analysis: For an addition under section 68, the assessee must establish the identity of the shareholders, their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. Where primary evidences such as PAN details, confirmations, bank statements, share application forms, allotment records, ROC filings and income-tax returns are produced, the initial onus stands discharged. Once that is done, the burden shifts to the Assessing Officer to bring cogent material to rebut the evidences or to show that the apparent transaction is not genuine. Mere non-appearance of subscribers in response to summons, by itself, is not enough to sustain the addition when the assessee has furnished complete documentary evidence. Material collected behind the back of the assessee cannot be relied upon without affording effective cross-examination. A retracted statement, without independent corroboration, also has limited evidentiary value. For the relevant assessment year, the proviso to section 68 and section 56(2)(viib) did not permit an adverse inference merely because share premium was considered excessive or commercially unjustified.
Conclusion: The addition under section 68 was held to be unsustainable and was directed to be deleted. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded in demonstrating the genuineness of the share capital and share premium receipts, and the reassessment addition could not survive on the basis of suspicion, untested material, or lack of subscriber appearance alone.
Ratio Decidendi: When an assessee furnishes complete primary evidence establishing identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of share subscription, the revenue must rebut it with cogent material; non-production of investors, uncorroborated adverse information, or denial of cross-examination cannot by themselves justify an addition under section 68.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
