Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Tribunal held that , failure to produce the assessment record by the revenue  adverse inference against the Revenue and held  that all the documents were filed before AO even at assessment stage. Considering the facts of the case, in the light of material on record and the decisions referred  it is clear that assessee produced sufficient documentary evidence before AO,  at the assessment as well as appellate stage to prove ingredients of S. 68 of the Act. The AO  however, did not make any further enquiry on the documents filed by the assessee. Thus, the AO  failed to conduct scrutiny of the documents at assessment stage and merely suspected the transactions in question on the irrelevant reasons. The A.O. did not make any enquiry from the Banker of the Investor and Income Tax record of the Investor Company. The assessee, thus, proved the identity of the Investor, its creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. Accordingly the addition was deleted . The valuation report filed by the assessee support explanation of assessee that shares were issued at premium which were below the fair market value per share of Rs.1221/.Accordingly the addition cannot be made as income from other sources . ( ITA.No.2534/Del./2018, dt. 10.08.2018)(AY-20142015)

[Click here to download PDF file]http://itatonline.org/archives/wp-content/uploads/Priyatam-Plaschem-Bogus-Share-Capital.pdf