Dismissing the appeal of the Revenue the Tribunal held, that none of  four persons, whose statements were relied upon by the Assessing Officer, were persons holding any important post or having any authority in the college or trust and therefore their statements could not be the sole basis of addition, when no evidence was gathered either from the premises of the assessee-trust or the premises of these four persons. The Assessing Officer did not have in his possession any material or evidence to come to a conclusion that the assessee had received Rs. 2 crores by way of capitation fees. The assumption of the Assessing Officer that the cash represented capitation fees collected from students was far-fetched and based purely on conjecture and surmise, wherein in the course of search and in the post-search proceedings, SP had denied collecting capitation fees from students. There was no evidence found in the course of search which would show that the assessee had received capitation fees from students. The contention of the Revenue that since the search operation began first at the other group of DYP at Navi Mumbai, the assessee had received prior information about the search operation and for that reason no corroborative evidence or material was gathered in the course of search could not be accepted. The Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly held that search operation being leaked could not be an alibi for making addition in an assessment, as the assessment has to be made based on evidence and not on suspicion and conjectures.(AY. 2013-14 to 2015-16)