Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-II”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
ORDER The Assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30/6/2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar on the following grounds:-
That the part of the appellate order dated 30.6.2016
regarding the confirmation of addition of Rs.
2,50,000/- out of Rs. 5,00,000/- being the expenditure done by the mother in her daughter’s marriage, is erroneous, incorrect and wrong.
2. That apart from the fact that cash expenditure had been made by the mother in her daughter’s marriage
out of her capital account, addition is erroneous, incorrect.
Therefore, it is prayed that addition which is wrong
and against the law is liable to be set aside.
The facts in brief are that in this case a Complaint (TEP) was received from the ITO (Investigation), Dehradun through Ld. CIT, Muzaffarnagar that Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta (Assessee) has invested Rs. 28 lacs in the marriage of his daughter on 22.11.2009.
Assessee could not explain the source and evidences of expenditure of Rs. 24 lacs before the ITO(Inv.), Dehradun. The ITO((Inv.)
Dehradun transferred the case to Saharanpur and recommended the action u/s. 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has accepted the investment in the marriage of his daughter but he could not explain the source of investment. Therefore, action u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was taken on the basis of unexplained investment and notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 29.4.2013, after recording the reasons. Further notices u/s. 142(1), 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued to the assessee from time to time and he was also required to furnish the necessary information vide order sheet entries on different dates. In response to notice u/s. 148 of I.T. Act, the assessee has filed his return of income of RS. 5,14,072/- from salary income. Further statutory notices u/s. 142(1) were issued and in response thereto the Counsels of the Assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed the required details and documents which were checked by the AO. The AO observed that the amount of cash shown to be paid from Smt. Anuradha Gupta, the wife of the assessee is from her capital account is excessive. Therefore, keeping in view of the status of her family, he disallowed Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 5,00,000/- and completed the assessment u/s. 143(3)/48 of the I.T. Act, 1961 vide his order dated 27.3.2015 and assessed the income at Rs. 18,66,709/- by making various additions.
3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 30.6.2016 has partly allowed the appeal and affirmed the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- out of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of cash expenditure.
Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A), Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- of cash expenditure by mother in her daughter marriage is not justified. He stated that Mrs. Anuradha Gupta, (mother) and the Assesee’s wife is an Income Tax assessee from the last more than 22 years. All the capital account and statements of affairs are being filled every year with relevant ITR.
She spent Rs. 5 lacs cash on her daughter marriage out of her own Capital A/c which is very obvious for any mother. He further stated that the AO made this addition merely on the basis of presumption/ speculation that it is excessive is against the provisions of law.
Hence, he requested that the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be deleted and appeal of the assessee may be allowed.
On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find that the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- of cash expenditure by mother in her daughter marriage is justified, because Mrs. Anuradha Gupta, (mother), Assesee’s wife, is an Income Tax assessee from the last more than 22 years and having regular rental income from house property and other sources. All the capital account and statements of affairs are being filed every year with relevant ITR by Smt.
Anuradha Gupta. I further find that Smt. Anuradha Gupta, wife of the assessee spent Rs. 5 lacs cash on her daughter marriage out of her own Capital A/c which is very obvious for any mother. I note that AO made this addition and Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the same merely on the basis of presumption/ assumption. However, it is settled law that any addition made on the basis of presumption and assumption is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, in my opinion, the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) needs to be deleted, therefore, I delete the same and accordingly, allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the Assesssee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20/01/2017.