2014 (2) TMI 135 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Deletion made u/s 68 of the Act – Notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act – Burden to prove – Held that:- The investors not only did not submit any confirmation and had concededly reported far less income than the amounts invested, the assessee could not under the circumstances be said to have discharged the burden which was upon it in the first instance – Relying CIT v. Lovely Exports [2006 (11) TMI 121 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - It is not sufficient for the assessee to merely disclose the addresses or identities of the individuals concerned - The other way of looking at the matter is that having given the addresses, the inability of the noticees who are approached by the AO to afford any reasonable explanation as to how they got the amounts given the nature of their income which was disproportionally less than what they subscribed as share capital would also amount to the Revenue having discharged the onus if at all which fell upon it - the assessee in the case was incorporated barely few months before the commencement of the assessment year, and there is no further information, or anything to indicate why its markup of the share premium thousand folds in respect of the shares which were of the face value of ₹ 10 lakhs was justified – Decided partly in favour of Revenue.