TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 873
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the AO making an addition of Rs. 50 lakhs. The brief facts are that the AO reopened the assessment based on information that assessee had paid capitation fee and regular fees to M/s.Santhosh Medical College, Ghaziabad for his son Dr.M. Kumanan during the relevant year i.e, AY 2008-09 in respect of the course of MS(Ortho). The AO noted the details of payments made by assessee as under: 1. Date of payment of capitation amount paid in cash 20-11-2007 2. Capitation/donation amount paid Rs. 45,00,000/- 3. Regular fees paid Rs. 20,00,000/- 4. Regular fees paid Rs. 20,00,000/- TOTAL Rs. 65,54,500/- 3. Further he noted that the assessee had filed return of income (RoI) on 28.09.2008 for AY 2008-09 admitting total income of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the tune of Rs. 11,738.07 lakhs which included capitation & regular fees given by the assessee to the to the tune of Rs. 66,54,500/- for his son. According to the AO from verification of records, it was found that there was no source in respect of Rs. 50 lakhs paid towards capitation & regular fees to M/s. Santhosh Medical College; and he inferred that amount of Rs. 50 lakhs have been paid by the assessee from his undisclosed income. The AO further noted that the assessee had filed an application u/s. 144A of the Act before the ACIT, Range-2, Erode, to issue direction to the AO for allowing assessee facility for cross-examination before completing the proceedings in support of his claim that no such capitation fees was paid as alleged by D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., wherein, on similar allegation that capitation fees has been paid by that assessee (Shri Manjit Singh Gahlot), the AO made similar addition in the hands of that assessee an amount of Rs. 19,75,000/-. According to the Ld.AR, in that case also, similar allegation was made that payment was made by that assessee to M/s. Santhosh Medical College and the AO relied upon the very statement of Dr. P.Mahalingam recorded during the course of search u/s. 132(4) of the Act, which was challenged before the Delhi Tribunal; and the Tribunal was pleased to delete the addition made by the AO, since no opportunity for cross-examination was granted to the assessee. We note that similar/identical issues had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Shri Shal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l submissions, first of all I may point out that under identical facts and circumstances, a coordinate bench ITAT, Delhi in the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani Vs. ITO (supra), which has been referred by the coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the subsequent order in the case of Shri Manjit Singh Gahlot Vs. ITO (supra), the Tribunal held as follows: - "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 a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee of Rs. 19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at assessment stage, in which, the statement of Dr P Mahalingam recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, have been referred to, but, it is nowhere mentioned in which statement, if such copy of the statement was provided to assessee for explanation of assessee. The assessee denied to have made any cash payment to Dr P Mahalingam. The assessing officer in the assessment order also did not mention any fact if statements Dr P Mahalingam have been provided to the assessee for his comments or was confronted to assessee at any stage. The assessing officer did not record in the assessment order if statement of Dr. P Mahalingam recorded at the back ....