IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 409 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 26, 2012 Jyotesh Kumar Jain …Appellant Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala …Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The short issue raised in the present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), is whether addition of ` 2,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sum paid to an educational institution during the Financial Year 1998-99 for admission of the son of the assessee, is sustainable in the eyes of law. The Chandigarh Bench ‘SMC’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’) as well as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has recorded categorical finding that the amount could not have been paid by the son of the assessee in the absence of any income being declared on account of earning of the minor son in the hands of either of his parents. Thus, such a plea was not sustainable. It is appropriate to mention ITA No. 409 of 2011 (O&M) ITA No. 409 of 2011 (O&M) ITA No. 409 of 2011 (O&M) ITA No. 409 of 2011 (O&M) 2 that Shri Rohit Jain was born on 8.8.1990 and the amount was paid to the M.M. Educational Trust on 21.8.2008. The son is dependent upon his father and in the absence of any evidence concerning the source of income of ` 2,00,000/-, the amount in question has to be assessed as income of the assessee. It is in these circumstances that the Tribunal accepted the findings recorded by the CIT (A). 2. We have heard learned counsel for the assessee- appellant at some length and are of the view that no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise. Mr. Ravi Shankar has argued that written arguments were submitted and the Tribunal has failed to deal with the written arguments. From the record or the order of the Tribunal it is not inferable that written arguments were ever submitted or accepted by the Tribunal. In any case, the question of fact has been decided by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal. No question of law warranting admission of the appeal would arise. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH ALOK SINGH) March arch arch arch 26, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2012 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor