During relevant years, assessee-company had shown certain additions to share capital in its books of account; It was revealed that assessee, through involvement of cashier of Bank manipulated accounts by way of bogus/fictitious entries in compliance of provisions as prescribed by SEBI in order to facilitate public issue. No actual cash inflow carried out by assessee for enhancing share capital, the Assessing Officer held that such increase in share capital represented unexplained cash credit and made additions under section 68.  Held that, a legal fiction is created under section 68 on basis of which an entry in books of account is deemed to be income of assessee chargeable to tax in event assessee fails to discharge onus imposed upon it u/s. 68. However, such legal fiction could be applied only in case of actual transactions incorporated in books, therefore, transactions were fictitious/bogus, did not involve real cash inflow, and it was impracticable for assessee to discharge onus of establishing identity and creditworthiness of parties and genuineness of transaction, hence s.68 was not invocable. Followed the guidance  form the Judgement of Supreme Court  in Krishna Swamy S.PD  v. UOI (2006) 281 ITR 305 (SC) whren in it was held that ,   “ The other relevant maxim is Lex non cogitadimpossibilia –   The law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform . The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as in its general aphorisms all intention of compelling impossibilities ,and the admiration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases [ See : U.P.S.R.T.C v. Imtiaz Hussain 2006 (1) SCC 380 , Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumusab v. Kunar & Ors 2006 (1)SCC 46 , Mohammod Gazi v. State of M.P. & Bros  2000 (4)SCC 342 and Gurusharan Singh v. New Delhi Munnicipal Committee 1966 (2) SCC 459 ] “       (ITA No.186 to 188/AHD/2015 dt.29/10/2020) (AY.  1995 -96 to 1997 -98)