TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1890
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alleged Capitation Fees paid in Cash, to the Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, UP on the basis of report of Investigation Wing, DDIT(Inv.) Unit-S(1), New Delhi. 2. That The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the assessment order passed by the AO assessing the total income at Rs. 26,18,060/- as against returned income of Rs. 2,18,060/-. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that it was the burden of the appellant to establish that no amount of capitation fees has been paid to M/s Santosh Medical College, even since beginning of the Re-Assessment proceedings, Assessee (who was of 19 Years of age at the time of admission to the Santosh Medical College) had already denied to have paid any amount as Donation / Capitation Fees over and above the regular course fees to Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad for his admission. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- on account of alleged payment to M/s Santosh Medical College without providing any opportunity of cross examination and relying upon the information collected behind the back of the appellant. 5. That the Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- as donation/capital fee out of total payment of Rs. 31,18,000/-. Hence, the AO had reason to believe that the assessee's income for FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14 has escaped assessment within the meaning of sec 147 and accordingly issued notice u/s. 148. Initially the assessee did not comply with the notice. Further opportunities of being heard were issued by the AO in the form of notices u/s. 142(1) along with questionnaires in response to which the assessee has filed certain details before the AO. The assessee stated that he was residing in a joint family wherein his parents, brother's family are having sufficient sources for arranging his medical college fee. With regard to the payment of Rs. 24,00,000/- as donation/capitation the assessee denied payment of any such sum. The payment of Rs. 7,18,000/- as regular/tuition fee by the assessee was accepted by the AO. However, with regard to the alleged cash payment of Rs. 24,00,000/- as donation/capitation fee, the AO held that the same cannot be ruled out in private medical colleges and specifically when the chairman of trust/college has himself admitted of having received such payment from students, it is reasonably inferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....garding the plea of the assessee for not allowing cross examination, the ld. CIT(A( held that cross examination is not mandatory in all cases and referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs Swati Bajaj, 139 taxmann.com 352 (Kol.), where it was held that merely by stating that the report has not been furnished to them nor the director of the company was not made available for cross examination would not suffice and rejected the claim of the assessee for the cross examination of Dr. P. Mahalingam. In view of these facts, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- u/s 69C of the Act. 7. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. At the outset, the. Ld. AR relying upon the additional ground submitted that the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act was bad in law because the assessment based upon documents/information found during the course of search of the third party can be framed only under the provisions of section 153C of the Act and not u/s 148 of the Act as done by the Assessing Officer in the present case. It was further submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, submitted that the addition of Rs. 24 lakhs made in the hands of the assessee was not justified and the same should be deleted. 9. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer in this case as appearing on page no.1 of the paper book is reproduced as under:- 11. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the Assessing Officer states that the documents seized from the premises H-1 to 6, Santo Nagar, Pratap Vihar, Ghaziabad, in the case of Santosh Group of Institution and Dr. P. Mahalingam on 27.06.2013 showed details of donation/capitation fee over and above the regular course fee paid in cash by the parents of students taking admission in various medical courses during FY 2007-08 to 2013-14. Therefore, the reference to the seized documents by the Assessing Officer states that the documents showed payment of donation/capitation fee over and above the regular course fee paid in cash by the parents of students and not by the student, who took admission in the respective courses. Regarding the reasons mentioned by the Assessing Offi....