TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/-. 3. Facts of the case are that a survey action u/s.133A of the Act was conducted in the premises of Sarvajanik Janakalyan Parmarthik Nyas, Bhopal on 9.8.2005 and some loose papers were impounded. On the basis of those loose paper, the AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 26.3.2013 for initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s of the Act. The AO also provided the reasons recorded u/s.147 of the Act. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had made cash payment of Rs. 3,50,000/- to People's College of Medical Science and Research Centre, Bhopal (PCMSRC) for securing admission of his son Shri Appoorva Loya in MBBS course . In reply to show cause notice, the assessee replied that h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cceptable on the ground that there are corroborative evidence gathered by way of enquiry, which proves that the assessee has paid donation of Rs.,3,50,000/-for the admission of his son in MBBS course. Even if some donors, whose names are appearing in the list impugned during the course of survey, have admitted of giving donations to admit their child. Hence, the ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO. 5. Before us, ld A.R. of the assessee relied on the decision of Indore Bench in the case of Shri Sujay Sharma (supra) u/s.263 of the Act, wherein, on similar issue, the Tribunal has quashed the order of ld CIT. Ld A.R. also relied on the decision of this Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Bansal (supra), wherein also, the Tribunal ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is Bench in the case of Pradeep Kumar Bansal (supra) has deleted similar addition following the decision of the ITAT Chennai in the case of Saveetha Institute of Medical & Technical Science (supra), wherein, it has held as under: "We have examined the entire record before us. We have also treaded through the statements in question. Almost identical lines of arguments were taken by both sides as were taken before the learned CIT(A). We have cogitated the entire facts, evidence and oral submissions in the light of provisions of the Act and related precedents. We have gone through the entire statement of Dr. B. Muthukumaran, a copy of which is enclosed in the paper book. From this statement, it is evidenced that the portion on which the AO i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... statement. There being no incriminating evidence regarding receipt of capitation fees, particularly when no document was put to Dr. B. Muthukumaran regarding charging of capitation fees, such a statement cannot be made a basis for making such a huge addition. His statement was rather denied by the Managing Trustee/President. Shri T.A. Varadgarajan, Finance Manager also denied the statement of Dr. B. Muthukumaran. In any other case, even one goes by this statement, this would not make any meaningful sense. Dr. B. Muthukumaran has stated that the money had been handed over to one Shri Saravanan, accounts officer, but Shri Saravanan was never enquired by the Department. The statement of Dr. N.M. Veeraiyan, who is the President/Mangement Trust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered view, this addition could not have been made at all in the hands of the assessee-trust on the basis of such evidence. Recording of some questions after verification could be viewed as a involuntary statement, extracted from the deponent. In any case, a possibility of such inference is always there. With regard to such statement, the CBDT has issued instructions vide Circular No. 286/2/2003-IT, wherein it has been directed that search party shall not obtain confessions. So, the admission made under s. 132(4) by the concerned officer cannot be treated even as a valid piece of evidence. There being no incriminating document having been found or seized during search and the statement also being abstruse, the addition in question has ....