Case Law Details
Sudarshan Kumar Jain Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
I find the son of the assessee Dr. Sandeep Jain who appeared before the Assessing Officer had categorically stated that whatever amount has been paid towards admission and donation/capitation fee has been paid by him. He and his wife are doctors since 1996 and have sufficient source to pay this amount. Therefore, when Shri Sandeep Jain admitted before the Assessing Officer regarding the payment of such capitation fee and when Shri Sandeep Jain and his wife are both doctors which is not in dispute, therefore, in my considered opinion, addition, if any could have been made in the hands of the son of the assessee i.e., Shri Sandeep Jain and not in the hands of the assessee.
No doubt Shri P. Mahalingam in his statement had accepted to have received capitation fee as unaccounted money from Shri S.K. Jain, f/o Shri Sandeep Jain and has surrendered the same for taxation as mentioned by the Assessing Officer. However, a perusal of the statement recorded of Shri Mahalingam, which has been reproduced by the CIT(A) in his order, nowhere shows he has taken the name of the assessee. Page 21 of the order of the CIT(A) shows the name of the students/course pursued and the students’ fathers’ name and addresses.
Nowhere it conclusively shows that the capitation fee was paid by Shri Sudarshan Kumar Jain, father of Dr. Sandeep Jain. Since the son of the assessee Dr. Sandeep Jain had appeared before the Assessing Officer and has stated that he and his wife are doctors and had enough source to pay the admission and donation/capitation fees for his higher studies, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that no addition is called for in the hands of the assessee. Addition, if any, could have been made in the hands of only Dr. Sandeep Jain. In this view of the matter, I set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.10,01,000/- made u/s 69A of the IT Act. Since the assessee succeeds on merits, the legal grounds raised by him challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings is not being adjudicated being academic in nature.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
