Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 888/2016
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)..... Appellant Through : Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Advocate, for Reveneue.
versus
ALL INDIA KATARIA EDUCATION SOCIETY..... Respondent Through : Sh. Arvind Kumar and Sh. Harsh Vardhan Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R %
24.05.2018
The Revenue’s appeal questions the deletion of amounts brought to tax by the Assessing Officer (AO). In the impugned order made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereafter “the 1961 Act”], the AO was of the opinion that the amount reported, i.e. `46,30,000/- as voluntary donations for the Building Fund were, in fact, not through volition, but on account of a pattern of compulsory extraction, as a condition for the admission of pupils to the school. For so concluding, the AO has relied upon the statement of around 20 guardians/parents of pupils admitted to the assessee’s schools. These statements were recorded during the course of survey under Section 133A of the 1961 Act. As such they did not have Page 1 of 2
evidentiary value so as to be determinative of the issue. CIT(A) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) concurrently set aside those additions, holding that the evidence collected behind the back of the assessee could not be unilaterally used to complete the assessment. The Revenue places reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi 2011 (334) ITR 262. At best, the appellate authorities should have sought recourse to remand and provided the required opportunity.
This Court has considered the submissions. The amount in question is `46.3 lakhs. The statements in this case were recorded in 2007; in the given circumstances, it is highly improbable that the parents of the pupils would be available. In fact, almost all pupils who were admitted in the concerned academic year would have finished their schooling. Moreover, the tax effect in respect of addition is below the prescribed limited. Since these are concurrent findings of fact, the Court is of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J MAY 24, 2018/ajk
Page 2 of 2