9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of any student to the contrary was confronted to the assessee - there is no mistake in the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition and the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue is confirmed – Decided against Revenue. Deletion of low household withdrawals – Held that:- The assessee has withdrawn a sum and her husband has withdrawn for Household expenses of the family consisting of husband, wife and two children - The expenses seems to be reasonable, and therefore, no interference in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is called for – Decided against Revenue. Addition in Admission Fee - The CIT(A) has passed a well-reasoned order on the issue - The CIT(A) has recorded that in the business of education, gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unted tuition income of Rs.20 lakhs at the time of survey under section 133A of the Act, but has shown only an amount of Rs.10,77,500/- in her return of income as tuition income. He submitted that there is no valid reason for the so-called retraction made by the assessee after a gap of seven days from the date of original statement recorded by the department at the time of survey making a surrender of Rs.20 lakhs. He referred to relevant portions of the assessment order in support of the case of the Revenue. He relied on the order of the AO. The learned counsel for the assessee has opposed the submissions of the learned DR. He submitted that in answer to question no.10 in the statement recorded on 29.11.2006, at the time of survey, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.6,500/- as charged from them. The assessee has stated in the statement recorded at the time of survey that "as this is a statistical calculation I will match with my kachha reports and inform if any change is there ..... ". The assessee made necessary calculations and filed a letter dated 5.12.2006 before the AO wherein the calculations were submitted showing that the assessee made only income of Rs.10,60,000/-. The Revenue could not produce any material to controvert the contents of the calculation sheet/retraction letter dated 5.12.2006 filed before the AO. The CIT(A) has given a finding that only evidence of actual fee receipt was only in the form of statement of the assessee recorded during the course of survey proceedings. The CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of low household withdrawals of Rs.60,000/-" 6. We have heard the parties. We find that the assessee has withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,13,000/- and her husband has withdrawn Rs.60,000/- for HH expenses of the family consisting of husband, wife and two children. The expenses seems to be reasonable, and therefore, no interference in the order of the CIT(A) on this issue is called for, and the ground no.3 of the Revenue is dismissed. CO No.21/Ahd/2010 (Assessee's CO) 7. The only ground of the CO of the assessee is as under: "1. That the ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.1,00,000/- added as admission fee." 8. We have hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
