Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed against an addition made by the lower authorities on account of expenses related to his daughter's marriage. The addition was based on a complaint filed by the daughter alleging atrocities by her husband and in-laws.
Held
The Tribunal held that the expenditure on the marriage was claimed by the daughter in a complaint, and Section 56(2) of the Act exempts such expenditure. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities lacked merit and was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether the expenditure on a daughter's marriage, when claimed by the daughter in a complaint, is exempt under Section 56(2) of the Income-tax Act and thus cannot be added to the assessee's income.
Sections Cited
144, 56(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Lokmani Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 56-E, Pocket-A2, Ward-68(1), Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi New Delhi PAN: BCHPS8831B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Indore’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1071970596(1), dated 08.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It is noticed during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the sum of Rs.21 lakhs as spend by the assessee/appellant on the occasion of his daughter’s marriage performed in the relevant financial year. Learned departmental representative’s case therefore is that the impugned addition has been made in light of a complaint filed by the assessee’s daughter herself before the police authorities alleging her husband and in- laws to have committed atrocities after solemnization of her marriage.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the additions. The Revenue could hardly dispute that no such complaint had been made by the assessee wherein he had ever admitted any such expenditure before the police authorities. It is reiterated that his daughter in fact had filed the original complaint alleging an expenditure of Rs. 21 lakhs on the occasion of the marriage which itself exempt under section 56(2) of the Act. This tribunal therefore finds no merit in the impugned addition made by both the lower authorities in the assessee’s hands since already covered in the foregoing specific provision. Deleted accordingly.