9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1518 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of payment of capitation fees - assessee failed to substantial source of cash given to M/s Santosh Medical College - validity of addition made without providing any opportunity of cross examination and relying upon the information collected behind the back of the appellant - HELD THAT - As under identical facts and circumstances, a coordinate bench ITAT, Delhi in the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani 2019 (3) TMI 1787 - ITAT DELHI which has been referred by the coordinate bench of Delhi Tribunal in the subsequent order in the case of Shri Manjit Singh Gahlot Vs. ITO 2022 (10) TMI 399 - ITAT DELHI as held it is well settled Law that unless the incriminating documents or statement used against the assessee are confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. In the absence of any material on record against the assessee and in the absence of cross examination to the statement of Dr P Mahalingam on behalf of the assessee, such material cannot be used against the assessee so as to make the impugned addition. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Burden of proof regarding capitation fees paid to a medical college. 2. Validity of addition in the assessment order without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. 3. Legality of the assessment order and violation of jurisprudence principles. Detailed Analysis: 1. The issue in this case revolved around the burden of proof regarding the payment of capitation fees to a medical college. The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the burden on the assessee to establish the non-payment of capitation fees. The counsel argued that the burden was wrongly placed on the assessee and emphasized that the impugned assessment order was arbitrary, illegal, and violated fundamental principles of jurisprudence. 2. Another crucial issue was the validity of the addition in the assessment order without providing an opportunity for cross-examination. The counsel contended that the addition on account of alleged payment to the medical college was made without allowing cross-examination and relying on information collected behind the appellant's back. The counsel cited previous ITAT orders to support the argument that such additions without proper opportunity for cross-examination are unjustified. 3. The legality of the assessment order and the alleged violation of jurisprudence principles were also raised. The counsel highlighted that the assessment order was arbitrary, illegal, and against fundamental principles of contemporary jurisprudence. The counsel argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT (A) should be deleted due to the lack of proper procedure followed in making the addition. 4. In response, the Senior DR supported the orders of the authorities below, arguing that the addition was justified as the assessee failed to provide substantial evidence of the cash given to the medical college as capitation fees. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the rival submissions, referred to a previous ITAT decision in a similar case. The Tribunal held that additions on merit are unjustified unless incriminating documents or statements are confronted to the assessee and cross-examination is allowed. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee based on the lack of proper procedure followed in making the addition. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal found the facts and circumstances of the present case to be identical to the previous cases referred to. Considering the totality of the facts and the legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee on account of payment of capitation fees. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below and deleted the entire addition in the hands of the assessee. 7. The appeal was partly allowed on merits, and the order was pronounced in the open court on the specified date.
|
