TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1,85,592/- which was held by the AO as capital in nature ignoring the fact that purchase of new computers is not allowable as revenue expenditure. 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act holding that the AR, not the assessee made the surrender during assessment proceedings ignoring the fact that the addition was made by the AO on the basis of detailed enquiry and not only on the basis of surrender made by AR of the assessee. 02. The facts of the case shows that assessee is a company engaged in the business of design, engineering and manufacturing of Hydro power generating equipments, erection and commissioning of Hydro power generating machines. It filed its return of income on 30th September, 2012 at Rs. 3,60,57,450/-. The assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was passed on 27th March, 2015. The ld. Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,50,00,000/- on account of share capital under Section 68 of the Act. Total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 6,10,57,450/-. 03. Assessee preferred an appeal where the ld. CIT (Appeals) d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on the basis of these facts, could it be said that it is the assessee which has not been able to explain the source and receipt of money. According to the assessee, he had given the required information to explain the source and was not obligated to prove source of the source. It is the submission of the assessee that even in case there is some doubt about the source of source, it would not automatically follow that the said money belongs to the assessee and becomes its unaccounted money. The assessee appears to be correct on this aspect. Something more which was necessary and required to be done by the Assessing Officer was not done. The Assessing Officer failed to carry his suspicion to logical conclusion by further investigation. After the registered letters sent to the investing companies had been received back undelivered, the Assessing Officer presumed that these companies did not exist at the given address. If the companies are not existing, one can draw the conclusion that the assessee had not been able to disclose the source of amount received and presumption under section 68 for the purpose of addition of amount in the hands of the assessee. But, it has to be conclusive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er's relationship as buyers or agents, the lawyers have certain authority and certain duties. Because lawyers are also fiduciaries, their duties will sometimes be more demanding than those imposed on other agents. The authority-agency status affords the lawyers to act for the client on the subject matter of the retainer. One of the most basic principles of the lawyer-client relationships is that lawyers have fiduciary duties to their clients. As part of those duties, lawyers assume all the traditional duties that agents owe their principals and, thus, have to respect the client's autonomy to make decisions at a minimum, as to the objectives of the representation. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. The law is now well settled that a lawyer must be specifically authorized to settle and compromise a claim, and merely on the basis of his employment he has no implied or ostensible authority to bind his client to a compromise/ settlement. I have examined the explanation of appellant and in my considered view addition cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee in the next year which created a doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer that how can a company invest a huge sum in the form of share capital and allow it to get forfeited without making any attempt of recovery of such sum in the immediately next year. Therefore, the assessee was asked to prove identity, credit-worthiness and genuineness of the whole transaction. Assessee submitted certain details based of which that these are the companies having very meager income and further the source of the fund invested by these companies as also issue of share capital at a premium to other companies. All these 6 companies has the identical address of City Business Centre, 3603, 1st Floor, Chamber No. 12, Darya Ganj, Delhi-2. On verification of the confirmation of computer generated confirmation identically worded were submitted before the Assessing Officer by all the 6 companies of the same date. The assessee was asked to produce the principal officers of all these companies for examination on 20th January, 2015. However, assessee did not produce even a single principal officer or Director of the 6 companies. Assessee was also given another opportunity on 16.02.2015 to pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer analyzed the annual accounts of the assessee company for the year ended on 31st of March 2012 where the share application money was outstanding for pending allocation of Rs. 2 .73 crores and for 31st of March 2013 the share application money of Rs. 2 .5 crores were forfeited. The learned AO issued summons to the director of the assessee company u/s 131 of the act for personal disposition in order to produce original application made by the persons for share application money whose shares have been forfeited. On 27th of March 2015 the authorised representative of the assessee submitted that that they are submitting the share application money for addition to the income of the assessee for financial year 2011 - 12. The learned authorised representative also submitted that the assessee company offered the share application money for taxation and suomotu surrender the same. The learned assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee holding that assessee has failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions of the share application money. He discussed numerous judicial precedents. And made the addition of Rs. 25,000,000/-....