Tribunal deletes Rs. 12 lakh addition for alleged capitation fee lacking corroborative evidence beyond third-party statement

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the AO as alleged capitation fee payment for the assessee's daughter's medical college admission. The addition was based solely on a third party's statement recorded during search proceedings without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained merely on third-party statements without supporting material, emphasizing that the Revenue must prove unaccounted payments with direct evidence. The assessee's denial coupled with absence of direct evidence linking her to the alleged capitation fee payment resulted in deletion of the addition and allowance of the appeal.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered by the Tribunal is whether the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as unexplained income on account of alleged payment of capitation fee for admission of the assessee's daughter to Santosh Medical College is justified and sustainable in law. Specifically, the Tribunal examined:

• Whether the assessee paid any capitation or donation fee in cash for admission, beyond the declared course fee of Rs. 4,50,000/-.
• Whether the addition can be sustained solely on the basis of statements made by a third party (Dr. P. Mahalingam, Chairman/Trustee of Santosh Group of Institutions) during search and seizure proceedings.
• The evidentiary requirements and principles governing additions based on third-party statements in income tax assessments.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue: Legitimacy of addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- as alleged capitation fee paid by the assessee

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act, 1961 empowers the Assessing Officer to make additions to income if undisclosed income is detected. However, it is a well-established principle that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statements of third parties without corroborative evidence. The burden lies on the Revenue to prove that the assessee has received or paid unaccounted income or expenditure. The Supreme Court and various Tribunals have consistently held that statements of third parties, especially those made in search or seizure operations, cannot be the sole basis for additions without supporting material.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted the admission of her daughter to the medical college and payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- as college fees during the relevant period. However, the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- was made on the basis of an appraisal report and the statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam recorded during search proceedings under section 132(4) of the Act. Dr. Mahalingam admitted to accepting donations/capitation fees in cash from students generally but did not specifically implicate the assessee or link the payment to her directly.

Key evidence and findings: The Revenue relied primarily on the statement of Dr. Mahalingam and an appraisal report wherein the name of the assessee's daughter appeared. No direct evidence such as cash receipts, bank statements, or admissions by the assessee regarding payment of capitation fee was produced. The assessee categorically denied any payment of capitation fee and asserted that admission was on merit.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal emphasized that the addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a third party's statement without corroborative material. The absence of any direct or independent evidence linking the assessee to the alleged payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- capitation fee was fatal to the Revenue's case. The principle that "addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement and much less the statement made by third party without supporting evidence" was applied.

Treatment of competing arguments: While the Revenue argued that the incriminating material seized during search proceedings and the statement of the Chairman of the institution were sufficient to justify the addition, the Tribunal found this argument unpersuasive in the absence of direct evidence against the assessee. The assessee's denial and the lack of corroboration weighed heavily in favor of the assessee.

Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of alleged capitation fee payment was unsustainable and deleted the addition.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal held: "It is a well settled principle that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement and much less the statement made by third party without supporting evidence."

Core principles established include:

• Additions to income must be supported by direct or corroborative evidence and cannot rest solely on statements of third parties recorded during search or survey operations.
• The burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish that the assessee has paid or received unaccounted income or expenditure.
• Denial by the assessee coupled with absence of any direct evidence negates the basis for addition.

Final determination on the issue was that the addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- on account of alleged capitation fee payment was deleted and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---