JUDGMENT We have heard learned counsel for the Income-tax Department. No one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. 2. The assessment year in question is 1990-91. 3. The following two questions have been referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,35,000/- being the share application money allegedly received from six persons, made u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the alleged share applicants? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the share capital cannot be equated as cash credit and that if the share holders are genuine persons the amount contributed by them towards share capital cannot be taken as cash credit in the hands of the company?" 4. The fact is that there was certain share application money paid in cash to the assessee-company by various persons at various dates. 5. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the creditworthiness of six of such applicants and, therefore, a total amount of Rs.1,35,000/- (rupees one lac and thirty five thousand) contributed by the six applicants was added as undisclosed income of the company. 6. The addition was deleted relying upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Stellar Investment Ltd., as reported in (1991)192 ITR 287. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-department has relied upon the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sophia Finance Ltd., as reported in 205 ITR 98. 8. Both the decision i.e. Stellar Investment Ltd. (supra) and Sophia Finance Ltd. (supra) are by Division Benches of Delhi High Court. The case of Stellar In-vestment Ltd. (supra) has been considered in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd. (supra) 9. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, which is relevant here, is reproduced below: "68. 8. Both the decision i.e. Stellar Investment Ltd. (supra) and Sophia Finance Ltd. (supra) are by Division Benches of Delhi High Court. The case of Stellar In-vestment Ltd. (supra) has been considered in the case of Sophia Finance Ltd. (supra) 9. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, which is relevant here, is reproduced below: "68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax as the in come of the assess of that previous year." 10. Upon a reading of the said provision as well as the two decisions relied upon, we find that placing of burden upon the assessee-company to trace the source and the credit-worthiness of the share applicants would be almost an impossible task, especially for large companies having large share capital. Normally, the Courts lean against placing any practical or impossible burden upon any person. 11. However, these two decisions show that where the share applicant is actually an existing person and not a bogus person, there, if the creditworthiness or the capacity to invest in the share is not established, it would be for the department to proceed against such person, who had applied for shares without having such capacity. However, where the share applicant is a fictitious or bogus person whose identity cannot be traced, in such an event, the amount of application money may be added as undisclosed income of the company particularly where such an investment is made in cash. 12. In this case, the existence of the share applicants was not disbelieved, only their creditworthiness was in doubt, and therefore, deleting the addition of amount from the alleged undisclosed income of the company is correct. 13. The questions referred are answered accordingly.