TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 399
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed from the DDIT (Inv.) Unit-V(1), New Delhi noted that assessee's income to the extent of Rs.31,18,000/- has escaped assessment during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14 and proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 have been initiated on 16.03.2016 after satisfaction note recorded thereof, with the prior approval of the JCIT, Range-43, New Delhi. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noted that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.19,50,000/- towards capitation fee/donation for admission of his daughter Miss Gunjan Gahlot for the course of MBBS during the year under consideration. The A.O. issued statutory notices to the assessee under sections 147 and 142(1) requiring the assessee to furnish full details and documents and the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee denied that he had made payments of Rs.19,50,000/- in cash to the Institution towards capitation fee/donation. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee and treated the amount of Rs.19,50,000/- as income escaping assessment under section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and added the same back to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee. He has submitted that issue is covered by the Order of ITAT, Delhi SMC-Bench, Delhi in the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani, Delhi vs., ITO, 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. 5. The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities and also filed written submissions. He submitted that the assessee did not dispute the admission of his daughter in Santosh Medical College in MBBS course and that his daughter's name Ms. Gunjan Gahlot was included at S.No.34 in the list of cash received of Rs.23 lakhs on 10.07.2012 as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order at para No.4.1 at page-3 and 4 of the order. Since the assessee failed to prove that he has not paid any capitation fee/donation towards admission of his daughter Ms. Manjeet Singh Gahlot in MBBS Course in Santosh Medical College/Maharaji Educational Trust, he, submitted that addition have been rightly made in the hands of assessee and that reopening of the assessment is wholly justified. He, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be confirmed. 6. I have heard the Learned Represe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation of assessee that no amount is paid by assessee for admission of his daughter in Medical Course. An identical issue on similar set of facts have been considered by ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani, Delhi vs., ITO, Ward-61(5), New Delhi reported in 2019 (3) TMI 1787 - ITAT Delhi, which is placed on record by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee at pages 75 to 77 of the paper book. The Order of the Tribunal 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llenged the reopening of the assessment as well 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 Rs.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....