YOGESH SHARMA,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 50(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6134/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 October 2025AY 2010-11Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that no receipt was produced to evidence the payment by the assessee, nor was there any indication of payment made on her behalf. Therefore, the addition was based on conjectures and surmises and was not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order upholding the addition of Rs. 28,23,500/- made in cash for capitation fee for her daughter's admission to Santosh Medical College. The addition was based on an investigation report and the statement of the college's authorized person.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of alleged capitation fee payment is sustainable when no direct evidence or receipt has been found in the hands of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 30.10.2025

Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Yogesh Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-11, Sector-61, Ward-50(31, Noida-201307 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJMPS3633A Assessee by: Sh. Jatin Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11, arises against the CIT(A)-31, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079011649(1) dated 29.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action holding her to have made capitation fee payments in cash amounting to Rs.28,23,500/- to M/s Santosh Medical College for getting admission of her ward/daughter Ms. Neeraj Sharma in assessment order dated 21.12.2017 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Yogesh Sharma 4. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that the impugned addition has been rightly made in the assessee’s hands based on the department’s Investigation Wing’s report and the relevant material found/seized during the course of search action in the said recipient group of cases on 27.06.2013. The tribunal is further informed that the learned departmental authorities had also recorded search statement of the college’s authorized person admitting receipt of capitation fee etc. as well.

5.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement pleadings reiterating their respective stands. I find no reason to sustain the impugned addition. This is for the precise reason that not even a single receipt has been found to have been issued in the assessee hands or that indicating payment on her behalf made to the college concerned. Faced with this situation, it is crystal clear that the impugned addition is based on mere conjectures and surmises which is not sustainable in law. The same stands deleted therefore.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →