TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion to the Medical College. The receipt executed by the College is also affirmed this fact that daughter of the assessee has made the payment for MBBS Course. Thus, no material is available on record to prove that assessee made any payment on behalf of the daughter for admission to the MBBS Course. Since the Revenue alleged that the amount in question is paid by assessee for admission of her daughter to the Medical Course, therefore, burden is very heavy upon Revenue to prove by positive evidence that assessee has in fact made the payment to the Medical College for admission for her daughter. However, no evidence is available on record to prove such contention rather the evidences on record and initial denial of the assessee itself supports the explanation of assessee that no amount is paid by assessee for admission of her daughter in Medical Course. In the light of material on record as well as Order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani, Delhi . [ 2019 (3) TMI 1787 - ITAT DELHI] we are of the view that no addition could be made against the assessee of the impugned amount. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they have contributed the amount for admission of the daughter of the assessee. The A.O, however, did not accept their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter and made the addition of ₹ 32,50,000/- under section 69 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. The assessee challenged the initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 148 of the I.T. Act and addition on merit before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the contention of assessee as regards initiation of re-assessment proceedings and addition on merit and did not accept the contention of assessee that source of payment made to the Medical College is contributed by brothers of the assessee. The assessee also took the plea that the amount is not assessable in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee holding that assessee has not established that his daughter was not dependent on him nor did furnish the complete details of fees which would have helped to investigate the same issue. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, rejected this contention of assessee as well. The issue as regards protective assessment is to be made in the hands of daughter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O, Ward 61(5), New Delhi, in ITA.No.1561/Del./2018 Dated 05.03.2019 in which on identical facts addition on merit have been deleted by the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that addition have been rightly made in the hands of assessee and that reopening of the assessment is wholly justified. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee has filed original return of income for the assessment year under appeal on 11.02.2011 (PB-1). Such fact is also mentioned in the assessment order. The reopening of the assessment is made subsequently in 2015. Copy of the reasons for reopening of the assessment are filed at page-13 of the PB in which the A.O. has recorded that as per information received from Investigation Wing search was carried-out on 27.06.2013 in Santosh Medical College Group of Institutions and Dr. P. Maha Lingam, who was Chairman/Director of this Institution, in which, he has admitted to have received regular fees by cash as well as unaccounted money and surrendered the same for taxation. A preliminary letter was issued to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Shri Naresh Pamnani, Delhi (supra), which is reproduced as under : IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.1561/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Shri Naresh Pamnani, Delhi.PAN AAFPP4406J C/o. Matta Associates, 877, Aggarwal Cyvber Plaza-II, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Delhi-034. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-61(5), Civic Centre, SP Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ajay Kumar Matta, C.A. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2019 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the Order of Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi, Dated 29th January, 2018, for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the addition on merit. 4. I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that assessee raised specific ground on merit to challenge the addition on merit, but, the Ld. CIT(A) without any reason noted in the impugned order that assessee has not raised any ground in this regard. He has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced all the grounds in the appellate order, in which, in Ground No.6, assessee has challenged the addition of ₹ 19,75,000/-. He has submitted that A.O. or the Investigation Wing have not supplied copy of the statement of Dr P Mahalingam to him for rebutting his statement and no cross-examination to his statement have been allowed at any stage, therefore, this statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. He has referred to the statement of assessee recorded at assessment stage, copy of which is filed on record, in which he has denied to have paid any amount to Dr P Mahalingam or the above college as capitation fees. He, therefore, submitted that since no material has been confronted to assessee, therefore, no addition could be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the assessee so as to make the impugned addition. I, accordingly, set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the addition of ₹ 19,75,000/-. 8. Both the parties also argued on initiation of reassessment proceedings and have also cited various case Laws and Ld. D.R. also submitted written submissions. However, in view of the fact that addition on merit have been deleted, the issue of reopening of assessment is left with academic discussion only. I do not propose to decide the same. In view of the above, appeal of assessee is allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed. 8.1. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above in the light of material on record as well as Order of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani, Delhi (supra), we are of the view that no addition could be made against the assessee of the impugned amount. In view of the above, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and delete the entire addition in the hands of the assessee. However, the Revenue is at liberty to pursue their remedy if any, against Ms. Priyanka Kadian is so advised as per Law. . Since the addi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
