9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 873 - AT - Income TaxAddition of capitation and regular fees payment to medical colledge for son's education - statement of Dr. P.Mahalingam recorded during the course of search u/s. 132(4) - as argued AO failed to supply the copy of statement of Dr. P.Mahalingam and no cross-examination was allowed - HELD THAT - The addition of Rs. 50 lakhs was made based on the statement of Dr. P.Mahalingam, and even though, assessee requested for cross-examination by filing an application before the Addl.CIT, the same was denied which act of omission on the part of the AO/ACIT violates the natural justice, and therefore, we do not countenance such an action of the AO and for that we rely on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v 1980 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT and also the decision of M/s Andaman Timber Industries 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT wherein, their Lordships are held omission to cross-examination of third party statement would make the statement null in the eyes of law. It would be gainful to refer to the order of Naresh Pamnani 2019 (3) TMI 1787 - ITAT DELHI which has been referred in the subsequent order in the case of Shri Manjit Singh Gahlot 2022 (10) TMI 399 - ITAT DELHI - Thus we held that the AO s action of omission to allow assessee cross-examination of Dr. P. Mahalingam vitiates the addition and therefore, we direct deletion of addition of Rs. 50 lakhs. Assessee appeal allowed.
Issues:
Appeal against addition of Rs. 50 lakhs made by AO based on capitation fees payment for son's education in medical college for AY 2008-09. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Addition of Rs. 50 Lakhs: The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs made by the AO for paying capitation and regular fees to a medical college for his son's education. The AO reopened the assessment based on information regarding the payments made by the assessee. The AO noted that the son had studied PG course of MS (Ortho) and that the assessee paid Rs. 66,54,500 to the medical college, with Rs. 50 lakhs paid in the relevant year. The AO inferred that the amount was paid from undisclosed income, leading to the addition. 2. Denial of Cross-Examination and Legal Precedents: The assessee requested cross-examination of Dr. P. Mahalingam, whose statement formed the basis of the addition. The denial of cross-examination was challenged citing violation of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court cases of Kishan Chand Chellaram and M/s Andaman Timber Industries, emphasizing that omission to allow cross-examination of a third party statement nullifies its legal validity. The Tribunal highlighted similar cases where additions were deleted due to lack of cross-examination. 3. Judicial Precedents and Decision: The Tribunal relied on previous orders where additions were deleted due to the absence of cross-examination opportunities. Citing the case of Shri Naresh Pamnani, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of confronting incriminating documents or statements to the assessee and allowing cross-examination before using them as evidence. The Tribunal set aside the AO's decision and deleted the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs, following the legal principles established in previous cases. 4. Final Decision and Outcome: After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to allow cross-examination of Dr. P. Mahalingam invalidated the addition of Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the entire addition in the hands of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in such cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case highlights the significance of providing opportunities for cross-examination and ensuring procedural fairness in tax assessments, ultimately leading to the deletion of the disputed addition of Rs. 50 lakhs in the hands of the assessee for the relevant assessment year.
|
