Held that the mere non-appearance of the directors could not be the basis for treating the share application money as unexplained or non-genuine, particularly where the time allowed for compliance was short. Where the assessee had so discharged its onus, the onus shifted to the Assessing Officer to disprove the documents furnished. In the absence of any investigation by the Assessing Officer, the additions could not be sustained merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. The addition was deleted. (AY. 2012-13)
Dharmvir Merchandise P. Ltd. v.ITO (2023)101 ITR 279 (Kol) (Trib)
S. 68 : Cash credits-Share capital and premium-Summons served on directors and subscribers-Service of summons sufficient to prove identity of subscribers-Bank statements of subscribers showing sufficient funds prove creditworthiness-Transaction genuine as done through banking channels-onus of assessee discharged-Mere ground that person summoned did not appear insufficient ground for addition.[S. 131]