SHIV KUMAR SINGH,NEW DELHI V. ITO,WARD-(), NEW DELHI

ITA 3252/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Shiv Kumar Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had confirmed an addition of Rs. 12,00,000 to his income for the assessment year 2011-12. This addition was alleged to be a capitation fee paid for his daughter's admission to Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad. The Assessing Officer had made this addition based on a statement from Dr. P. Mahalingam, Chairman/Trustee of Santosh Group of Institutions, who admitted during a search and seizure operation that capitation fees were accepted in cash. However, the Tribunal noted that no direct evidence was provided to substantiate that the assessee had paid any such fee, leading to the decision to allow the appeal and delete the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312710 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S GAUTAM JAIN; THROUGH VIRTUAL; ANKIT KUMAR; ADVOCATES
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Search and seizure
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.3252/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2011-12) ITA No.3252/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2011-12) Shiv Kumar Singh, E-466, Vijay Marg, Jagjeet Nagar, New Delhi-110053 PAN: AIGPS-4866-E ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 71(3), New Delhi ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : S/Shri Gautam Jain, (Through Virtual) & Ankit Kumar, Advocates ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 04/02/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 29/04/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 13.06.2024, for assessment year 2011-12. 2. Shri Gautam Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee is a salaried employee and is working in a multinational company. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the daughter of assessee got admission in Santosh Medical College, Ghaziabad to study Medicine. The assessee had paid a college fee of Rs.4,50,000/- during the relevant period. The total fee for the entire course was Rs.25,60,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made addition of 2 ITA No.3252/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) Rs.12,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has paid capitation fee in cash for admission of her daughter in Santosh Medical College. The ld. Counsel contented that the assessee’s daughter got admission to the Medical College, on merit as per marks obtained by her in the entrance test. No donation or capitation fee was paid by the assesee. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submits that the assessment for AY 2011-12 was reopened in the case of assessee only on the basis of statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam, Chairman/Trustee of Santosh Group of Institutions. A search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was carried out on Santosh Group of Institutions on 27.06.2013. During survey certain documents/books were seized, statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam was recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act wherein he has admitted accepting donations/capitation fee in cash from students in lieu of admissions. He asserted that addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of admission made by third party. Except for appraisal report wherein name of assessee’s daughter appears, no material whatsoever was provided to the assessee that would show that the assessee has paid any capitation fee. The ld. Counsel for assessee, thus prayed for deleting the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- . 3. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submits that in search proceedings carried out in the case of Santosh Group of Institutions certain incriminating material was found and seized which clearly indicating that the assessee has paid capitation fee of Rs.12,00,000/- in cash for admission of her daughter to the Medical course in Santosh Medical College. Dr. P. Mahalingam, Chairman of the Trust admitted accepting of donations/capitation fee in cash and offered the same to tax as unaccounted money. 3 ITA No.3252/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue in appeal is alleged cash payment of Rs.12,00,000/- as capitation fee by the assessee to Santosh Medical College for admission of her daughter. The assessee has admitted the fact of admission of her daughter in Santosh Medical College to study Medicine and has also admitted the fact of payment of course fee of Rs.4,50,000/- during the year. However, the assessee has categorically denied payment of any capitation fee. The contention of the assessee is that his daughter admission to Medical course was purely on merit and no capitation fee was paid by him. 5. The Revenue, except for a appraisal report has not placed on record any corroborative material to show that the assessee has actually paid Rs.12,00,000/- in cash as capitation fee. It is a well settled principle that addition cannot be made merely on the basis of statement and much less the statement made by third party without supporting evidence. Considering entire facts of the case, I am of considered view that the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- made in the hands of the assessee on account of alleged payment of capitation fee is unsustainable. Hence, the same is deleted. 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 29th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 29.04.2025 NV/- 4 ITA No.3252/Del/2024 (AY 2011-12) ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "