D.K.Seth, J. - (1.)Two questions have since been referred to in this case, namely :
"1. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,93,000 as introduction of share capital ? Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the AO to charge tax @ 55 per cent instead of 65 per cent although the assessee is not entitled for the same as per term and condition as per company law ?"

(2.)So far as the first question is concerned, it relates to addition of Rs. 3,93,000 on account of the subscription of share capital being held as ingenuine transaction under Section 68 of the IT Act, 1961. The law with regard thereto has since been crystallized. Similar question was involved in IT Ref. No. 20 of 1996, Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT and IT Ref. No. 78 of 1995, CIT v. Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. disposed of by this Court on 11th & 12th March, 2003. The principal ingredient that has to be satisfied is to establish the identity of the subscribers and prove their creditworthiness and the genuineness of the transaction. We have gone through the order of the AO at pp. 9 & 13 of the paper book. It appears that the assessee had failed to establish any of these three ingredients in respect of the said amount. The CIT(A) modified the order to Rs. 83,000 and. accepted the balance simply because income-tax file numbers of the other subscribers were disclosed. It appears from pp. 36-37 of the paper book containing the order of the CIT(A) that these few persons who had subscribed 8,300 shares were not income-tax assessees. Therefore, only these were added.
(3.)Mr. Som had relied on a decision in CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd., where it was held that furnishing of income-tax file number is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The proposition may be correct. But when some material is produced, it is incumbent on the Revenue to enquire into the same. In this case after the initial onus was discharged by the assessee, the IT authority has made enquiries and had communicated the result of the enquiry to the assessee and required the assessee to produce the subscribers and establish its case. But the assessee did not do so. Therefore, we do not think that the CIT(A) had rightly approached the case. The principle is already laid down in the aforesaid two decisions namely, Hindusthan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. (supra) and Ruby Traders & Exporters Ltd. (supra).
;