- (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated March 31, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "B" Bench, Kolkata, in ITA Nos.937 & 938/Kol/2007, pertaining to the assessment year 2000 - 01 and 2001 -02 and cross -objections being registered as C.O. Nos.43 & 44/Kol/2007. The appeals were preferred by the revenue and the cross -objections were filed by the assessee. The learned Tribunal has dismissed both the appeals of the revenue as also the cross -objections. The aggrieved revenue has come up in appeal. The following questions of law were formulated: 1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) in treating the Government subsidy received by the assessee amounting to Rs.23,00,000/ - as a capital receipt by disregarding the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sawney Steel and Press Works Ltd. (228 ITR 253) holding such receipts as revenue receipts 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue and confirming the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.2,03,40,000/ - on account of bogus share capital since the assessee failed to furnish evidences of identity and creditworthiness of the persons from whom share capital was claimed to have been received and also genuineness of the said transaction In so far as question no.1 is concerned, Mr. Nizamuddin, learned Advocate appearing for the revenue, did not seriously dispute that the subsidy received by the assessee was a capital receipt. Therefore, the same could not have been subject to taxation. We, as such, answer the question no.1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. With respect to the question no.2, we are, however, of the opinion that the following views expressed by the CIT(Appeals) and upheld by the learned Tribunal, are not in accordance with law: "As is evident from the judicial decision cited in the Para -9 above it is a settled principle of law that the assessee cannot be asked to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of transaction of the source of its source of share application. The independent enquiries of the A.O. regarding the transactions of the sources of the companies who have invested in the shares of the applicant company do not conclusively bring out any evidence that the share transactions are not genuine. In the circumstances it is held that there is no basis on record to hold that the share capital received by the appellant company of Rs.2,03,40,000/ - is bogus. In the result, the addition of Rs.2,03,40,000/ - is, hereby, deleted." When any sum is found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee, either on account of a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, the assessee is liable to prove that the money was actually received. The assessee is also liable to prove the nature of receipt. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was well within his right to make enquiry. Upon enquiry, it transpired that the so called shareholders were non -existent. The Assessing Officer, in the circumstances, was entitled to take the view which he did by his order dated March 31, 2006. The views expressed by him were as follows: "As the genuineness of transaction as mentioned above and credit worthiness of the concerns as mentioned above could not be proved, the share application money received from these persons is added back to the returned income of the assessee as unexplained credits." Mr. Bagaria, learned Advocate appearing for the assessee, however, drew our attention to the following part of the order passed by the Assessing Officer: "Vide letter dated 31 -3 -2006 it has been claimed that all the shareholders details have been submitted which is incorrect. On 31 - 3 -2006 copy of I.T. Return of M/s Offshore Finvest Ltd., and balance sheet claimed to be audited has been filed vide a letter dated 31 -3 - 2006 (assessment year 2000 -01) and hence there was no time on the part of undersigned to conduct any further investigation in this matter." Mr. Bagaria contended that if the Assessing Officer was in a hurry to complete the assessment and he, therefore, had no time to scrutinise the evidence adduced by the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee failed to discharge his burden. The submission advanced by Mr. Bagaria is not without substance. Therefore, the appropriate course will be to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer who shall consider the matter in the light of the law laid down by the Special Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sophia Finance and the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates. Any opinion expressed by us for the purpose of disposal of this appeal shall not prevent the Assessing Officer from arriving at his own conclusion in accordance with law. The question no.2 is thus answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The appeal is thus partly allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs. ;