TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AY 2006-07 in the circumstances of the case?" 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard for disposal. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed its income tax return for the year 2006-07. It is a matter of record that the assessee was incorporated on 20.10.2005 and commenced business thereafter. The assessee had reported receipt of share capital to the tune of Rs. 11 lakhs; it sold them at 1000% premium and claimed to have received Rs. 1.1 crores on that count. During the enquiry made at the time of assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to furnish various particulars which have been set out in pages 21-23 of the paper book and contained in about 10 columns. He also proceeded to make fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd identity of the investors. It is pointed out that a bare reading of the chart prepared by the Assessing Officer, during the course of his investigation, reflected in the impugned order would show that apart from the Section 133 (6) notices, independent enquiries had been made on the basis of the materials disclosed by way of income tax returns from the relevant assessing authorities. The AO concluded that the amounts claimed by the subscribers to be bona fide investors could not have been so having regard to the quantum of the income reported by them during the relevant assessment years. Counsel, therefore, submitted that even the requirement of the assessee having to discharge the burden imposed upon him was not in fact discharged in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Division Bench of this Court reported as Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dwarkadhish Capital P. Ltd., (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) to the following effect: - "In any matter, the onus of proof is not a static one. Though in Section 68 proceedings, the initial burden of proof lies on the assessee yet once he proves the identity of the creditors/share applicants by either furnishing their PAN number or income tax assessment number and shows the genuineness of transaction by showing money in his books either by account payee cheque or by draft or by any other mode, then the onus of proof would shift to the Revenue. Just because the creditors/share applicants could not be found at the address given, it would not give the Revenue the right to in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 133 (6) to the investors - 28 of them responded; 2 did not receive the notice and 9 of them received the notices and responded, but did not submit any confirmation. While entertaining this appeal on 12.11.2013, the Court had issued notice restricting to the addition of Rs. 31,94,000/-, i.e., so far as it pertained to 11 subscribers/investors whose particulars could not be verified and who did not respond to the notices issued by the AO. 8. Having regard to the circumstances, particularly, the fact that these investors not only did not submit any confirmation and had concededly reported far less income than the amounts invested, this Court is of the opinion that the assessee could not under the circumstances be said to have ....