sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

Aarti S Khetwani, C/o Skylite Electro Fix Pvt. Ltd., John Robert Compound , Sewri Fort Road, Sewri (E), Mumbai-400015 Vs. Income Tax Officer 7(2)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020
May, 02nd 2014
                     ,                  `'          

          .  ,                             .  .  ,     

                     (   / Assessment Year: 2000-01)

     Aarti S Khetwani,            / Income Tax Officer
     C/o Skylite Electro Fix Pvt. Vs. 7(2)(3),
     Ltd.,                            Aayakar Bhavan,
     John Robert Compound ,           M K Road,
     Sewri Fort Road,                 Mumbai-400020
     Sewri (E),
          . /   . /PAN/GIR No. : AAGPK7433D
          ( /Appellant)           ..  (  / Respondent)

              / Assessee by               :   Shri D J Shukla
                /Revenue               by :   Shri Ganesh Bare

                  / Date of Hearing
                                                    : 22.4.2014
              /Date of Pronouncement : 30.4.2014

                                    / O R D E R

       This appeal   by the assessee is   directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-13,

Mumbai dated 15.4.2011 pertaining to assessment year 2000-01.

2.     Grievance of the assessee is two fold. Firstly, the assessee has challenged the

addition of Rs.3,90,000/- made by AO and confirmed by ld. CIT(A) under section 69 of

the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Secondly, the assessee has challenged the very

jurisdiction of   the Assessing Officer in reopening the assessment and passing re-

assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.section 147 of the Act. In this case, the original

return was filed on 30.11.2000 declaring total income at Rs.1,68,220/-. The assessee is

a director in M/s Skylite Electro Fixtures Pvt Ltd. from which she has earned salary

income of Rs.1,34,400/-. The assessee has also declared business income of

Rs.55,000/-, income from other sources          at Rs.3,254/- and agricultural income of


3.     On the basis of information received from Investigation Unit-III(3), Mumbai, the

case was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and served upon the

assessee.   The assessee has stated that the return filed on 30.11.2000 may be treated

as return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. It was brought to the notice

of the assessee that during the course of search in case of M/s Ramarao Adik Education

Society, Worli, the investigation wing came to know that the assessee has paid the

donation /capitation fees to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/- for the admission of her son Mr.

Vishal Khetwani. The assessee was asked to furnish details of education /capitation fees

of Rs.3,90,000/-, the assessee was also asked to explain the source of payment . The

assessee replied that during the financial year 1999-2000, the assessee has paid a sum

of Rs.1,60,000/- by two separate drafts to M/s Ramarao Adik Education Society for the

admission of her son Vishal Khetwani. It was further submitted that the assessee does

not remember about the payment of Rs.2,30,000/- to Ramarao Adik Education Society.

The AO      strongly relied upon the finding of Investigation Unit     and came to the

conclusion that the assessee has paid a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- for the admission of her

son to Dr.D.Y.Patil Medical College. The AO further drew support from the statement

of Shri Shashikant Mandavkar, Account Clerk recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, wherein

the account clerk has confirmed of        having received donation/capitation fees of

Rs.3,90,000/- from the assessee for the admission of her son. Without confronting with

this statement of the account clerk, the assessee strongly replied that such statement

is not binding on the assessee. It was further pointed out that primary onus u/s 69C of

the Act is on the revenue and the revenue has to prove that the assessee has given

donation of Rs.3,90,000/-. The AO did not accept the contention of the assessee and

proceeded to make addition of Rs.3,90,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the


4.     Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but without success. The ld.

CIT(A) was convinced that the assessee has failed to contradict that the said amount

was not paid by her in cash. Aggrieved by this the assessee is before us.

5.     The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been submitted before the

lower authorities. It is the say of the counsel that the entire addition has been made

on the strength of the statement of account clerk except for that the AO could not

bring any material on record to establish that the assessee has actually paid the sum of

Rs.3,90,000/- as donation/capitation fees to M/s Ramarao Adik Educational Society.

The ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the lower authorities.

6.     We have carefully perused the orders of lower authorities and the relevant

material evidences brought on record.       It is not in dispute that the assessment was

reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Unit ­VIII(3),

Mumbai.    The Investigation unit informed that Mrs. Aarti         Khetwani       has paid

donation/capitation fees of   Rs.3,90,000/- for the admission     of her son Mr. Vishal

Khetwani to Dr. D Y Patil Medical College. It is also not in dispute that the statement

made u/s 132(4) of the Act relied upon by the Revenue is        of an employee who is

employed with M/s Ramarao Adik Institute of Technology, Nerul , Navi Mumbai. The

loose sheets referred to by the AO and which is placed before us as Ex-II and XII show

various names and one of the names is Mr. Vishal Khetwani.       The Revenue could not

bring any cogent material evidence on record to show what happened in the case of

other named persons. Secondly, the presumption u/s 132(4A) is in respect of person

in whose possession the books of accounts and other documents etc are found. Since

diaries were found   during the course of search in the case of        Dr.D.Y.Patil Group

premises presumption may be valid against that group but cannot be stretched to the

assessee. The provisions of section 69C of the Act clearly show that the it was for the

revenue to first establish that the assessee has incurred certain expenditure and then

the assessee does not offer any explanation about the source of such expenditure. In

the case in hand, the assessee has paid Rs.1,60,000/- to M/s Ramarao Adik Education

Society.    The revenue has grossly failed to demonstrate that the assessee has paid

capital fees for the admission of her son to Dr.D Y Patila Medical College. In our

considered view the additions cannot be sustained on the strength of           insufficient

evidence. The finding of the ld. CIT(A) are accordingly reversed and the AO is directed

to delete the addition of Rs.3,90,000/-.

7.     Since, we have directed the AO to delete the additions on merits, we do not

find it necessary to decide the grievance of the assessee to so far as it relates to re-

opening of the assessment .

8.     In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

       Order pronounced in the open court on 30th day of April, 2014
               30th day of April, 2014   

           Sd                                                    sd
(.  / D.MANMOHAN)                                 (.  .  /N.K.BILLAIYA)
  / VICE-PRESIDENT                                  / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
  Mumbai : 30.4.2014

. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
        /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.  / The Respondent.
3.     () / The CIT(A)-
4.      / CIT
5.      ,     ,        / DR, ITAT,
6.     / Guard file.
                                                                  / BY ORDER,
                True copy
                                                           (Asstt. Registrar)
                                           ,   /ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
SEO Company Search Engine Optimization Company US SEO Local SEO Company Website SEO Company Alabama SEO Company Alaska SEO Company Arizona SEO Company Arkansas SEO Company California SEO Company Colorado SEO Company Connecticut SEO Company Delawa

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions