Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue added Rs. 21,01,200/- to the assessee's income, representing capitation fees/donation payments made to M/s Santosh Medical College. This addition was based on information unearthed during a search at the medical college's premises, leading to reassessment proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal held that there was no receipt or evidence presented to substantiate the addition. The lower authorities relied solely on alleged information without proper reconciliation or substantiation, finding no merit in the impugned addition.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made to the assessee's income, based on information from a search at a third party without proper substantiation, is valid.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Rakesh Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, 103, Sea Court Tower-3, Jaypee Ward-2(2)(2), Greens, Alpha, Greater Noida, S.O. Ghaziabad, Kasana, Uttar Pradesh-201310 Uttar Pradesh-201009 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEKPG9369J Assessee by : Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1069918416(1) dated 24.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues at the outset that both the lower authorities have rightly added the assessee’s capitation fee/donation payments of Rs.21,01,200/-; made to the searched party M/s Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad, which was unearthed during the course of search in the latter’s case leading to initiation of
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. A perusal of the case file reveals that there is not even a receipt alleged to have been signed by either the assessee or recipient delay reconciled with the corresponding admission’s details which could substantiate the impugned addition made in the assessee’s hands. All what both the learned lower authorities have done is to go by some alleged information only which has never been light of the day. That being the case, I find no merit in the impugned addition which is hereby deleted in very terms.