https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219747 The HC held that the assessee's duty to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants under s 68 does not end with furnishing basic details like names and PANs. If the AO cannot verify the share applicants or doubts persist, the onus shifts back to the assessee, failing which additions under s 68 are justified. The court emphasized that receipts must be examined based on facts and circumstances, and where the source is not satisfactorily proved, the AO may treat the amount as taxable income. Considering the remand report and overall facts, the HC ruled in favor of the revenue, allowing the addition of unexplained income. en-us Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Aug 2025 16:54:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219747 The HC held that the assessee's duty to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share applicants under s 68 does not end with furnishing basic details like names and PANs. If the AO cannot verify the share applicants or doubts persist, the onus shifts back to the assessee, failing which additions under s 68 are justified. The court emphasized that receipts must be examined based on facts and circumstances, and where the source is not satisfactorily proved, the AO may treat the amount as taxable income. Considering the remand report and overall facts, the HC ruled in favor of the revenue, allowing the addition of unexplained income. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=219747