TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1303
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id and illegal as the reasons recorded do not reflect any satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding escapement of income but are based upon borrowed satisfaction of the Investigation Wing of the Department. 2. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts, in confirming the orders framed by the Ld. AO because the reasons so recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer talks about the information only and not about any material if any be received from the office of DI (Inv.), Delhi, prior to record reasons and thereafter to the issuance of notice u/s 148 to the appellant, as such, the orders passed are illegal and not tenable. 3. That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts, in confirming the orders framed by the Ld. AL u/s 143/147 copy of statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam of Santosh Medical College received from DI (Inv.), Delhi and possessed by Ld. Assessing Officer did not confirm that appellant has paid the donation/capitation fee of Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash at the time of admission of his daughter in Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence and information was received in this regard from the Inv. Wing. Thereafter, enquiry letter was issued to the assessee to explain the source of the money but there was no explanation and in accordance with provisions of the Act the case was re-opened as income had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee was confronted with the information received from DDIT (Inv.) regarding capitation fees of Rs 50,00,000/- paid in FY 2009-10. The statement of Chairman clarified that capitation fees was received and the registers seized and annexurised as A44 to A64 contained entries of both accounted and unaccounted receipts. The name of assessee's daughter figures in the list of such names at Sr. No. 110 and as per the code given the figure of fees paid and donation given and their total is clearly stated and it is the same pattern in all the cases. The statement of Chairman clarified that capitation fees was received and the registers seized and annexurised as A44 to A64 contained entries of both accounted and unaccounted receipts. The AO formed prima facie belief and case was reopened on this issue. After giving p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e College has been duly paid. Further submitted that, during the search operation, the Chairman of the Institution provided details as per the record maintained by the Institution and per the said record, an amount of Rs. 17,85,000/- has been received by the institution as fee of the student and balance of Rs. 50,00,000/- have been received as donation/capitation fee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) requires no interference. 12. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials on record. While making the addition the A.O. as relied on the records maintained by the Santosh Medical College and as per the said record, it is found that an amount of Rs. 17,85,000/- has been received by the Institution as fee of the student and balance Rs. 50,00,000/- have been received as donation/capitation fees and as per the information, schedules of fee paid in respect of Ms. Bhanu Priya (daughter of the assessee) are as under: Date Rs. No. C. Fee H. Fee HSD Other Cash Total Balance Sign 08.12.2009 TR 3,50000 - - - 3,50000 3,50000 11,50,000 14.12.2009 TR 1,50,000 - - - 1,50,000 1,50,000 10,00,000 07.05.2010 070....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not given opportunity to cross examine the said Sh. P. Mahalingam. Even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has specifically sought for cross examination of Dr. P. Mahalingam; but the same has not been granted to the assessee but the Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. 15. Similar issue has came up for considerations before the Tribunal in the case of Sulekh Chand Singhal vs. ACIT in ITA No.6700/Del/2019, wherein the same college and the very same Doctor's statement was in dispute and the Assessee therein was denied with the opportunity of Cross-examination wherein the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held as under: "6. We have considered the rival submissions. It is a fact that the entire addition is based on the statement made by Dr. P. Mahalingam which were recorded under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act in which, he has admitted to have received donation/capitation fees in cash which was surrendered for taxation. The assessee, however, denied to have paid any amount in cash on account of donation/ capitation fees to Dr. P. Mahalingam or the College in which his son was admitted for MBBS Course. Since the Revenue Department alleged that assessee has paid cash....