Personal appearance of a director is not a statutory substitute for documented traceability

Personal appearance of a director is not a statutory substitute for documented traceability in a corporate assessment – High Court

In a recent judgment, High Court has held that personal appearance of a director is not a statutory substitute for documented traceability in a corporate assessment, especially when the entities are active taxpayers

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
5045 (2026) (02) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case the Revenue had challenged the judgment of the ITAT deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on account of unexplained share capital and share premium.

The respondent-assessee was a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) duly registered with the Reserve Bank of India. For the relevant Assessment Year, its return was selected for scrutiny specifically to examine the receipt of a large share premium.

During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee had raised share capital and premium from fifteen corporate entities.

During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had placed before the AO a voluminous “Paper Book” containing all requisite documents, including PAN details, Income Tax Return acknowledgments, and audited financial statements of all the subscriber companies.

However, notwithstanding the availability of this documentary evidence, the AO issued summons under Section 131 of the Act to the directors of these companies. When they failed to appear personally, the AO proceeded to brand these companies as “shell entities” and added the entire amount as unexplained cash credit.

The Tribunal however, reversed this finding, noting that the subscribers were active taxpayers who had confirmed the transactions in response to notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act.

Before, the Hon’ble High Court, the Revenue argued that the meagre income declared by the subscriber companies, when contrasted with the high premium paid to acquire the shares of the assessee, leads to an irresistible conclusion that the transactions were mere accommodation entries.

Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court it contended that the AO was justified in looking behind the “paper trail” to ascertain the true creditworthiness of the investors and genuineness of the transaction.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that it is a settled legal position that to discharge the initial onus under Section 68, the assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transaction. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal conducted a meticulous factual inquiry and recorded a specific finding that the assessee provided a “Cast Iron” documentary foundation. The audited balance sheets of the subscribers demonstrated a substantial net worth, which was far in excess of the amounts invested.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the AO’s reliance on the non-appearance of the directors was misplaced and was not supported by the statutory scheme where robust documentary evidence is available. As held by the Court the AO is vested with co-terminus powers under Section 131 of the Act to compel attendance. If the AO fails to exercise these powers, he cannot subsequently visit the consequences of such failure upon the assessee. Personal appearance of a director is not a statutory substitute for documented traceability in a corporate assessment, especially when the entities are active taxpayers.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that in the instant case, the investors were identifiable taxpayers who directly responded to notices u/s 133(6) and confirmed the transactions through banking channels. Equating “traceable investors” with “phantom entities” is a leap in logic that cannot be countenanced. Furthermore, the valuation of shares is a matter of commercial wisdom. Unless the Revenue proves a “live link” showing that the funds originated from the assessee’s own coffers, the AO cannot substitute his judgment for that of the marketplace.

The Hon’ble High Court concluded that in a corporate assessment, documented traceability (comprising ITR acknowledgments, PAN details, and Bank Statements) through legitimate banking channels carries greater evidentiary weight than the subjective suspicion of an Assessing Officer. The “Test of Human Probability” cannot be invoked as a tool to disregard a verified and audited paper trail. Equating “traceable investors” with “phantom entities” was a leap in logic that cannot be countenanced. Furthermore, the valuation of shares is a matter of commercial wisdom. Unless the Revenue proves a “live link” showing that the funds originated from the assessee’s own coffers, the AO cannot substitute his judgment for that of the marketplace.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration and the findings of Tribunal were based on a sound appreciation of facts and settled legal principles. 

As a result, the appeal was dismissed. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Personal appearance of a director is not a statutory substitute for documented traceability
• Jharkhand Gramin Bank invites applications for the post of concurrent auditors
• Empanelment of ICAI Exam observer for May 2026 Examinations. Last date: 19/03/2026
• Exemption u/s 10(26) can’t be granted merely on the basis of tribal status and residence
• Statement recorded during search on standalone basis has no evidentiary value – ITAT