TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 0298/17-18/ITO, Ward-1, Nirmal/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2018-19, involving proceedings u/s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, 'the Act']. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We notice at the outset that the assessee's sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the learned lower authorities' action adding alleged un-explained expenditure amount of ₹ 5 lakhs in the course of assessment famed on 26-12-2017 and upheld in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion as under: 5. Ground No. 2 to 4 is with regard to addition of ₹ 5,00,000/- towards unexplained expenditure. 5.1. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that: As per information received from DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad that a search Seizure operation u/s. 132 was conducted in the case of M/s. Arihant Educational Society on 25.07.2013. During the search operation, it was noticed that the appellant had paid ₹ 20,00,000/- to M/s. Arihant Educational Society prescribed by government and additional amount of ₹ 15,00,000/- for the purpose of admission of his son D. Srujan Samrat. Since it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e) In contradictory to the said notice amount of ₹ 30,00,000/- the Ld. AO has taken the amount of ₹ 35,00,000/- as course fee and added ₹ 5,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure and completed the assessment based on such dumped and unsigned documents found from the premises of M/s. Arihant Educational Society, without bringing any corroborated material on record. j) The appellant relied in the judgments in the case of Addl. CIT Vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar reported in 74 ITR 696 (Bam), Hon'ble Delhi high Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Meenakshi Oversees pvt. ltd. (ITA No. 692/2016 dated 26.05.2017) and W.P.(C) No. 9659 of 2015 (Rajiv Agarwal Vs. CIT) gated 16.03.2016 and Radhasoami Satsang Vs. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC). 5.3. With regard to the above submissions as submitted by the appellant, a remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer on 10.05.2018. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer submitted his remand report on 25.05.2018, which is as under: Keeping in view the facts of the case and considering the failure on part of the assessee in furnishing the sources for the payment of ₹ 15,00,000/- as capitation fee despite the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Total fee collected D.Srujan Samrat 19.07.2012 2,00,000 A/CAIMS/04 page 94 20,00,000 15,00,000 35,00,000 14.03.2012 4,00,000 A/CAIMS/06 Page 95 13.03.2012 4,00,000 A/CAIMS/07 Page 129 It is very clear from the above table that the date wise payment of capitation fee in both the notices received from DCIT, Central Circle 2(2) was ₹ 10,00,000/- only (2,00,000 + 4,00,000+4,00,000). However, in the second notice in total column titled as Collection in excess of prescribed fee it was wrongly mentioned as ₹ 15,00,000/-. The amount mentioned as ₹ 15,00,000 in the total column would be a typographical error and therefore requesting to consider the factual information in the above two tables. Further the AO received the subsequent information on 18.12.2017 at 6.13 pm through official email id from DCIT, Central Circle-2(2). He called ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidences for ₹ 30,00,000/- (i.e., ₹ 20,00,000 prescribed fee and ₹ 10,00,000/- as capitation fees) as under: Date Source Head Amount (Rs.) 26.07.2009 Mortgage loan 3,40,000 16.07.2012 Educational loan 8,00,000 30.09.2012 HDFC Gold loan 1,80,000 30.07.2012 HDFC Personal loan 2,50,000 10.07.2013 LIC Policy loan 1,52,229 09.01.2015 PLI withdrawal 1,19,950 Accumulated salary savings 4,00,000 Gift from Father-in-law 2,60,000 Total 30,02,179 As seen from the above, the assessee has not disclosed sources for payment of balance capitation fees of ₹ 5,00,000/- and hence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter dated nil received in this office on 24.11.2017 confirmed that Shri D. Srujan Samrat has been admitted in MBBS course under management quota for the academic year 2009-10 on 07.09.2009 and submitted documentary evidence for payment of tuition fee to the tune of ₹ 13,00,000/- only and mentioned that since most of their records were with income tax department, they could furnish the information available with them as on that date. In response to the show cause letter dated 23.11.2017, the assessee's AR attended on 28.11.2017, 12.12.2017 and 18.12.2017 and submitted evidences for ₹ 30,00,000/- (i.e., ₹ 20,00,000/- prescribed fee and ₹ 10,00,000/- as capitation fees). However, basing on the mail received from DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad on 18.12.2017 i.e., Annexure I wherein it was mentioned that the assessee has paid ₹ 20,00,000/- towards prescribed fee and ₹ 15,00,000/- towards capitation fees, the assessee was asked to explain the sources for remaining amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- and requested to submit the details by 19.12.2017 and assessment was completed on 26.12.2017. Annexure-II was also taken into consideration befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diture' only. 3.1. Learned departmental representative first of all has filed the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note u/s. 153C based on seized material that the assessee had paid the impugned capitation fee of ₹ 5 lakhs. We make it clear that the assessee's grounds nowhere challenge validity of impugned assessment framed u/s. 153C of the Act. 3.2. Coming to merits, we notice that although this assessee draws salary income all along, neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have considered his cash in hand in AY. 2010-11 so as to give credit thereof before making the impugned addition. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that keeping in mind the assessee's social, economic status, his salary income drawn in the earlier assessment years and past savings, a lumpsum addition of ₹ 2.5 lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. The assessee gets relief of ₹ 2.5 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation to follow as per law. 4. This assessee's appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th May, 2021. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
