Ganapathi Dyavath, Nirmal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nirmal

ITA 423/Hyd/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4044 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y V S T SAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S L THARANGINI
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Search and seizure; Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 423/HYD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 GANAPATHI DYAVATH NIRMAL [PAN: AFIPD0325E] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 NIRMAL (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MS.S.L.THARANGINI, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI Y.V.S.T.SAI, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 06-04-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-05-2021 O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, J.M. : THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY.2010-11 ARISES FROM TH E CIT(A)-1, HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 28-01-2019 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. 0298 / 17-18 / ITO, WARD-1, NIRMAL / CIT (A)-1 / HYD / 2018-19, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT, THE ACT]. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHAL LENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION AD DING ALLEGED UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS IN THE ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 2 -: COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FAMED ON 26-12-2017 AND UPHELD IN THE CIT(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION AS UNDER: 5. GROUND NO.2 TO 4 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 5.1 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVED THAT: 'AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CENTRAL CIR CLE-2(2), HYDERABAD THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF M/S.ARIHANT EDUCATIONAL SO CIETY ON 25.07.2013. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION, IT WAS NOT ICED THAI THE APPELLANT HAC! PAID RS.20,00,000/- TO M/S.ARIHANT E DUCATIONAL SOCIETY PRESCRIBED BY GOVERNMENT AND ADDITIONAL AMO UNT OF RS.15,00,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMISSION OF HIS SON D.SRUJAN SAMRAT. SINCE IT IS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE FROM SEA RCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES U /S.153C TO THE APPELLANT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.10 ,00,000/- TOWARDS TUITION FEE OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.35,00 ,000/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE WORKED AS SCHOOL TEACHER AND THE SOURCES FOR PAYMENT OF FEE ARE OUT OF SALARY SAVINGS & LOAN AMOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PAYMENT AND SOURCES OF CAPITATION FEE OF RS.5,0 0,000/- SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN RESPO NSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD PAID RS.30,00,000/- BUT NOT R S.35,00,000/-. HOWEVER, AS PER DOCUMENTARY SUPPLIED BY DCIT, CENTR AL CIRCLE TOTAL FEES PAID WAS RS.35,00,000/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE C OULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30,00,000/- ONLY. H ENCE A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PAYMENT AND CAPITATION FEE OF RS.5,00,000/- PAID IN EXCESS OF RS.30 LAKHS SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITU RE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT NO SUCH PAYMENT WAS PAID BY HIM AND ONCE AGAIN REITERATED THAT HE PAID RS.30,00,000 /- ONLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON THE EVIDENCES DURI NG SEARCH AND SEIZURE, MADE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/- AS UNE XPLAINED EXPENDITURE. ' 5.2 DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE AP PELLANT SUBMITS THAT A) 'THE TOTAL FEES WAS RS.30,00,000/ - FOR THE ENTI RE MEDICAL COURSE. OUT OF WHICH RS.20,00,000/- WAS PRESCRIBED BY GOVER NMENT AS FEE FOR ENTIRE COURSE AND RS.10,00,000/- WAS PAID AS CA PITATION FEE. ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 3 -: B) THE APPELLANT HAD PAID THE MEDICAL COURSE FEE OF RS.30,00,000/- (INCLUDING CAPITATION FEE) IN DIFFERENT YEARS OF TH E COURSE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENTS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. C) THE LD.AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO PAYMENT OF FEES AND SOURCES FOR THE SAME. IN RESPONSE, THE APPELLAN T SUBMITTED ALL THE INFORMATION AND EXPLANATIONS RELATING TO THE PAYMEN T OF FEES ALONG WITH ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INCLUDING CASH FLOW S TATEMENTS. D) THE LD.AO CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT HE IS IN RECEIP T OF INFORMATION FROM DIT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID A MEDICAL COUR SE FEE OF RS.30,00,000/ - AS PRESCRIBED BY GOVERNMENT AND CAS H CAPITATION FEE AND ACCORDINGLY CALLED FOR INFORMATION. E) IN CONTRADICTORY TO THE SAID NOTICE AMOUNT OF R S.30,00,000/- THE LD.AO HAS TAKEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.35,00,000/ - AS CO URSE FEE AND ADDED RS.5,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH DUMPED AND UNSIGNED DOCUME NTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF M/S.ARIHANT EDUCATIONAL SOCIET Y, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATED MATERIAL ON RECORD. J) THE APPELLANT RELIED IN THE JUDGMENTS IN THE CAS E OF ADDL.CIT VS. MISS LATA MANGESHKAR REPORTED IN 74 ITR 696 (BAM), HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. MEENAKSHI OVER SEES PVT LTD (ITA NO.692/2016 DATED 26.05.2017) AND W.P.(C) NO.9659 O F 2015 (RAJIV AGARWAL VS. CIT) GATED 16.03.2016 AND RADHASOAMI SA TSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC). 5.3 WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AS SUBMITT ED BY THE APPELLANT, A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 10.05.2018. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS RE MAND REPORT ON 25.05.2018, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 'KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONSIDER ING THE FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE SOURCES FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.15,00,000/- AS CAPITATION FEE DESPITE THE OPPORT UNITIES ACCORDED, THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF THE NON-PAYMENT OF FEE OVER AND ABOVE EXPLAINED FEE OF RS.30,00,000/- MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED. ' 5.4 THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT ON 31.07.2018. IN RESPONSE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS DATED 28.01.2019, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 4 -: 'THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ITO MENTIONED THAT HE HAS INITIALLY RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM DCIT, CENTRAL C IRCLE-2(2) ON 29.08.2016, WHERE IN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PAID RS.30,00,000/ - AND SUBSEQUENTLY FURTHER INFORMATIO N RECEIVED FROM SAME OFFICE THROUGH EMAIL, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE PAI D RS.35,00,000/-. THE EXTRACT OF FEE DETAILS OF BOTH THE NOTICES RECEIVED BY THE LD.ITO, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS .- INFORMATION RECEIVED THROUGH NOTICE DATED 11.08.201 6 (RECD. ON 29.08.2016) BASED ON WHICH NOTICE U/S.142(1) DATED 06.09.2017 WAS ISSUED FOR RS.30,00,000 : STUDENTS NAME AND FATHER NAME PRESCRIBED FEE PAID ADDRESS AND CONTACT NO. AMOUNT PAID IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE PRESCRIBED FEE DATE OF PAYMENT OF DONATION/CA PITATION FEE SEIZED MATERIAL REFERENCE D.SRUJAN SAMRAT S/O.D.GANAPATHI 20,00,000 #1-2-28/D3/1, VIDYA NAGAR, NIRMAL, ADILABAD PH.9966930588 2,00,000 19.07.2012 PAGE 94 OF A/CAIMS/04 4,00,000 14.03.2012 PAGE 95 OF A/CAIMS/06 4,00,000 13.03.2012 PAGE 129 OF A/CAIMS/07 TOTAL 10,00,000 INFORMATION RECEIVED THROUGH EMAIL DATED 18.12.2017 AT 6.30 PM BASED ON WHICH INFORMATION CALLED FOR THROUGH NOTIC E DATED 18.12.2017 : NAME DATE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT PAID BY STUDENT SEIZED MATERIAL REFERENCE PRESCRIBED FEE PAID COLLECTION IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED FEE TOTAL FEE COLLECTED D.SRUJAN SAMRAT 19.07.2012 2,00,000 A/CAIMS/04 PAGE 94 20,00,000 15,00,000 35,00,000 14.03.2012 4,00,000 A/CAIMS/06 PAGE 95 13.03.2012 4,00,000 A/CAIMS/07 PAGE 129 IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE TABLE THAT THE DATE WISE PAYMENT OF CAPITATION FEE IN BOTH THE NOTICES RECEIVED FROM DC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(2) WAS RS.10,00,000/- ONLY (2,00,000 + 4,00 ,000+4,00,000). HOWEVER, IN THE SECOND NOTICE IN TOTAL COLUMN TITLE D AS 'COLLECTION IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED FEE' IT WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS RS. 15,00,000/-. THE AMOUNT MENTIONED AS RS.15,00,000 I N THE TOTAL ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 5 -: COLUMN WOULD BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND THEREFORE REQUESTING TO CONSIDER THE FACTUAL INFORMATION IN THE ABOVE TWO T ABLES. FURTHER THE AO RECEIVED THE SUBSEQUENT INFORMATION ON 18.12.2017 AT 6.13 PM THROUGH OFFICIAL EMAIL ID FROM DCIT, CENTRA L CIRCLE-2(2). HE CALLED THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LATE HOURS (AR OUND 7.00 PM) AND ISSUED A NOTICE DATED 18.12.2017 FOR WHICH THE AR H AS ACKNOWLEDGED. FURTHER THE LD. ITO HAS ASKED FOR THE EXPLANATION FOR DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- WHICH FOUND B Y HIM FROM THE WRONGLY MENTIONED TOTAL AMOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DATE-WISE PAYMENTS (WHICH WAS RS.10,00,000/- ONLY.) THE AR CL EARLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID ONLY RS.10,00,000/- AS CAPIT ATION FEE. BUT THE LD.ITO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE AR STATEMENTS AND AL SO WITHOUT VERIFYING THE TOTAL OF THE DATE WISE PAYMENTS, WITH IN A SHORT PERIOD OF LATE HOURS ON 18.12.2017, RECORDED ORDER SHEET AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITH A WRONG ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/-. 5.5 WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APP ELLANT, ONCE AGAIN A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON 27.08.2018. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMI TTED HIS REMAND REPORT ON 17.09.2018, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 'A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE M/S.ARIHANT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ON 25,07.2013. IT W AS NOTICED FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL THAT SRI D.GANAPATHI HAD PAID R S.20,00,000/- AS PRESCRIBED FEES AND RS.15,00,000/- AS CAPITATION FE ES (COLLECTION IN EXCESS OF PRESCRIBED FEES) FOR GETTING ADMISSION OF HIS SON SRI D. SRUJAN SAMRAT IN MBBS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 IN CHALIMEDA ANANDA RAO INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE (CAIMS). TH E ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.20,00,000/- AS PRESCRIBED FEES AND RS.1 0,0 0,000/ - (AS PART OF CAPITATION FEES OF RS.15,00,000). THE PART OF CA PITATION FEES OF RS.10,00,000 WAS PAID AS UNDER: STUDENTS NAME AND FATHER NAME FATHERS NAME AMOUNT PAID UNDER CAPITATION FEES DATE OF PAYMENT OF DONATION / CAPITATION FEE SEIZED MATERIAL REFERENCE D.SRUJAN SAMRAT D.GANAPATI 2,00,000 19.07.2012 PAGE 94 OF A/CAIMS/ 04 4,00,000 14.03.2012 PAGE 95 OF A/CAIMS/ 06 4,00,000 13.03.2012 PAGE 129 OF A/CAIMS/ 07 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES FOR RS.30,00,000/- (IE., RS.20,00,000 PRESCRIBED FEE AN D RS.10,00,000/- AS CAPITATION FEES) AS UNDER: ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 6 -: DATE SOURCE HEAD AMOUNT (RS.) 26.07.2009 MORTGAGE LOAN 3,40,000 16.07.2012 EDUCATIONAL LOAN 8,00,000 30.09.2012 HDFC GOLD LOAN 1,80,000 30.07.2012 HDFC PERSONAL LOAN 2,50,000 10.07.2013 LIC POLICY LOAN 1,52,229 09.01.2015 PLI WITHDRAWAL 1,19,950 ACCUMULATED SALARY SAVINGS 4,00,000 GIFT FROM FATHER - IN - LAW 2,60,000 TOTAL 30,02,179 AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLO SED SOURCES FOR PAYMENT OF BALANCE CAPITATION FEES OF RS. 5,00,000/ - AND HENCE THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. AS PER ANNEXURE-I ENCLOSED TO THIS LETTER WHICH WAS PART OF ENCLOSURE S RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE SRI D. GANAPATI HAD PAID PRESCRIBED FE ES OF RS.20,00,000/- AND CAPITATION FEES OF RS.15,00,000/ - AND WHEN THE SAME WAS PUT FORTH BEFORE THE AR DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS HE HAD ORALLY MENTIONED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE OF CO LLEGE AUTHORITIES AND CONFIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ONLY RS.30 ,00,000/- TO THE COLLEGE AUTHORITIES. AS PER ANNEXURE-II (ENCLOSED TO THIS LETTER) BEING ONE OF THE ENCLOSURES RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (2), HYDERABAD , IN THE LIST OF STUDENTS FOR BATCH-2009-1 0, THE AGREED AMOUNT AS A GAINST SHRI D.SRUJAN SAMRAT AT S.NO.17 IS RS.35 AND IT ALSO SHO WS THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE STUDENT IS RS.17.5 AND THE BALAN CE TO BE PAID IS RS.1 7. 5. AS PER ANNEXURE-! & II WHICH ARE PART OF SEIZED MATERIAL, THE AMOUNT PAID BY SHRI D. GANAPATI TOWARDS PRESCRI BED FEE AND CAPITATION FEES IS RS. 35,00,000/- AND ASSESSEE CON TENTION THAT HE HAS PAID ONLY RS.30,00,000/- TOWARDS BOTH THE FEES IS INCORRECT. HOWEVER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIONS DATED 20 .08.2018 BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE PRESCRIBED FEE AND AMOUNT PAID IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE PRESCRIBED FEE DETAILS BASING ON THE LETTER OF DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD'S LETTER DATED 11.08.2016 VIDE NOTICE ULS .142(2) DATED 06.09.2017 AND SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATED 23.11.2017. AS PER THE SEARCH MATERIAL THE FEE PAYMENT DETAILS WERE AVAILA BLE IN PART ONLY AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS NOT FULLY FURNISHED THE RECEIPTS FOR PRESCRIBED FEE AND DONATIONS FOR VERIFICATION, LETT ERS DATED 12.10.2017 AND 22.11.2017 WERE WRITTEN TO DCIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD REQUESTING FOR COPY OF APPRAISAL REPORT S O AS TO ENABLE THIS OFFICE TO COMPILE THE INFORMATION AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE INSTANT CASE. MEANWHILE, A LETTER DATED 07.11.2017 WAS ALSO ADDRE SSED TO THE AR, M/S.ARIHANT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HIMAYAT NA GAR, HYDERABAD ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 7 -: REQUESTING TO FURNISH. THE DETAILS PERTAINING TO FE E RECEIPTS OF CAPITATION FEE/DONATION OVER AND ABOVE REGULAR FEE PAID ALONG WITH LEDGER EXTRACT OF PAYMENTS OF THE CANDIDATES, ETC. HOWEVER, M/S. ARIHANR EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VIDE LETTER DATED NIL R ECEIVED IN THIS OFFICE ON 24.11.2017 CONFIRMED THAT SHRI D.SRUJAN SAMRAT H AS BEEN ADMITTED IN MBBS COURSE UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2009-10 ON 07.09.2009 AND SUBMITTED DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE FOR PAYMENT OF TUITION FEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.13,00, 000/- ONLY AND MENTIONED THAT SINCE MOST OF THEIR RECORDS WERE WIT H INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THEY COULD FURNISH THE INFORMATION AVAI LABLE WITH THEM AS ON THAT DATE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATED 23.11.20 17, THE ASSESSEE'S AR ATTENDED ON 28.11.2017, 12.12.2017 AN D 18.12.201-7 AND SUBMITTED EVIDENCES FOR RS.30,00,0001- (I.E., R S.20,00,000 PRESCRIBED FEE AND RS.10,00,000/- AS CAPITATION FEE S). HOWEVER, BASING ON THE MAIL RECEIVED FROM DCIT, CENTRAL CIRC LE-2(2), HYDERABAD ON 18.12.2017 I.E, ANNEXURE I WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.20,00,000/- TOWARDS P RESCRIBED FEE AND RS.15,00,000/- TOWARDS CAPITATION FEES, THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES FOR REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.5 ,00,000/- AND REQUESTED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS BY 19.12.2017 AND A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 26.12.2017. ANNEXURE-II WAS ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE ASKING SOURCES FOR PAYMENT OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/-. 5.6 THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT, I N RESPONSE, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 13.11 .2018, WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: 1.'INFORMATION RECEIVED THROUGH NOTICE DATED 11.08. 2016 FROM DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BASED ON WHICH NOTICE U/S.142( 1)) DATED 06.09.2017 WAS ISSUED AND IN WHICH IT IS CLEARLY ME NTIONED THAT THE PRESCRIBED FEE AND CAPITATION FEES WAS RS.30,00,000 /- ONLY (I.E., 20,00,000 + 10,00,000). 2. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED THROUGH EMAIL DA TED 18.12.2017 AT 6.13 PM FROM SAME DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND IN DETAILS OF CAPITATI ON COLUMN IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE CAPITATION FEES WAS RS.1 0,00,000 ONLY. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL/TOTAL MISTAKE IN TOTAL COLUMN AND BASED ON WHICH COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN UNJU STIFIED.' 5.7 WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE GROUND, I HAVE CAREFUL LY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORT DATED 25.05.2018 & 17.09.2018 AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AS P ER ANNEXURES ENCLOSED IN REMAND REPORT DATED 17.09.2018, IT IS S EEN THAT RS.35 LAKHS WAS AGREED BY THE APPELLANT FOR HIS SON SRI, D.SRUJAN SAMRAT AND HAS PAID RS.17.5 LAKHS. THE BALANCE OF RS.17.5 LAKHS IS YET TO BE ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 8 -: PAID. SINCE THE DETAILED REASONS MENTIONED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD EXPLAINED SOURCES FORRS.30 LAKHS, HOWEVER FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE SOURCES FOR DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS. HENCE THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE NOT ACCEPTED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON-EXPLANATION OF SOURCES FO R THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS.5 LAKHS MADE, IS CONFIRMED. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL PLEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON. THE SAME ADMITTEDLY HAS ARISEN ABOUT THE ALLEGED SEIZE D MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION DT.25-07 -2013 IN CASE OF M/S.ARIHANT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY INDICATING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE PAID CAPITATION FEE OF RS.5 LAKHS OV ER AND ABOVE THAT DECLARED OF RS.30 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THE SAID RS.5 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE TREATED AS UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ONLY. 3.1. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FIRST OF ALL H AS FILED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SATISFACTION NOTE U/S.153C BAS ED ON SEIZED MATERIAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE IMPUGNE D CAPITATION FEE OF RS.5 LAKHS. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS NOWHERE CHALLENGE VALIDITY OF IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.153C OF THE ACT. 3.3. COMING TO MERITS, WE NOTICE THAT ALTHOUGH THIS ASSES SEE DRAWS SALARY INCOME ALL ALONG, NEITHER THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER NOR THE CIT(A) HAVE CONSIDERED HIS CASH IN HAND IN A Y.2010-11 SO AS TO GIVE CREDIT THEREOF BEFORE MAKING THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION. FACED WITH THIS SITUATION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT KEEPING IN MIND THE ASSESSEES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC STAT US, HIS ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 9 -: SALARY INCOME DRAWN IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS A ND PAST SAVINGS, A LUMPSUM ADDITION OF RS.2.5 LAKHS ONLY WOU LD BE JUST AND PROPER WITH A RIDER THAT THE SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT IN ANY OTHER CASE. THE ASSESSEE GETS RE LIEF OF RS.2.5 LAKHS IN OTHER WORDS. NECESSARY COMPUTATION T O FOLLOW AS PER LAW. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH MAY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER HYDERABAD, DATED: 28-05-2021 TNMM ITA NO. 423/HYD/2019 :- 10 -: COPY TO : 1.SHRI GANAPATHI DYAVATH, H.NO.1-2-28, NEAR PRTU BH AVAN, VIDYA NAGAR, NIRMAL. 2.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NIRMAL. 3.CIT(APPEALS)-1, HYDERABAD. 4.PR.CIT-1, HYDERABAD. 5.D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6.GUARD FILE.