IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 348/2008  
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                          ..... Appellant 
 Through Mrs. P.L. Bansal, Adv. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 VALUE CAPITAL SERVICES P.LTD.                         ..... Respondent 
 Through Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Adv. 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                               25.04.2008 
 . 
 The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 13th June, 2007 passed by the 
 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ?C?, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in ITA 
 No.229/Del/2005 relevant for the Assessment Year 2001-02. 
 The Assessee had received an amount of Rs.51 lakhs as share application 
 money from 33 persons.  The Assessing Officer required the Assessee to produce 
 all these persons. It appears that some of them did appear.  The Assessing 
 Officer accepted the explanation and the statement given by three of these 
 persons but found that the response from the others was  either  not  available 
 or  was  inadequate.   On  this  basis, the  Assessing 
 . 
 ITA 348/2008                                                               Page 
 1 of 3 
 . 
 Officer added an amount of Rs.46 lakhs pertaining to 30 of the persons to the 
 income to the Assessee. 
 In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the 
 view taken by the Assessing Officer. 
 In further appeal, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had noted the fact 
 that the Assessee had produced the income tax returns, share application forms, 
 confirmation, PAN letter, ration card and/or bank statement in respect of all 
 the share applicants. The CIT(A) had accepted the existence of the applicants 
 . 
 . 
 but did not accept the genuineness of the transaction, subject matter of the 
 inquiry. 
 While setting aside the order of the CIT(A), the Tribunal relied upon two 
 decisions of this Court, namely, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Stellar 
 Investment Ltd., [1991] 192 ITR 287 and a Full Bench decision in Commissioner of 
 Income Tax v. Sophia Finance Ltd., [1994] 205 ITR 98.   Several other decisions 
 have been rendered by this Court following the above two decisions.  The 
 principle that has been laid down by the various decisions rendered by this 
 Court from time to time is that if the existence of the applicant is proved, 
 normally no further inquiry is necessary. 
 Learned  counsel  for  the  Revenue submits that the creditworthiness of 
 . 
 ITA 348/2008                                                               Page 
 2 of 3 
 the applicants can nevertheless be examined by the Assessing Officer.  It is 
 quite obvious that is very difficult for the Assessee to show the 
 creditworthiness of strangers.  If the Revenue has any doubt with regard to 
 their ability to make the investment, their returns may be re-opened by the 
 department. 
 In any case, what is clinching is the additional burden on the Revenue. 
 It must show that even if the applicant does not have the means to make the 
 investment, the investment made by the applicant actually emanated from the 
 coffers of the Assessee so as to enable it to be treated as the undisclosed 
 income of the Assessee.  This has not been down insofar as the present case is 
 concerned and that has been noted by the Tribunal also. 
 Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal has not 
 committed any error in deleting the addition. 
 No substantial question of law arises. 
 Dismissed. 
 . 
 MADAN B. LOKUR, J 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 APRIL 25, 2008                            MANMOHAN SINGH, J 
 vk 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 348/2008                                                               Page 
 3 of 3