ROBIN AGARWAL,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(2), SILIGURI

आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.07.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2013-14. 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:

1. 2. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the addition of marriage gifts of Rs.10,04,754/- made by the Ld. AD u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without considering the details Robin Agarwal AY 2013-14 furnished before him and without reference to any books of accounts maintained by the appellant was bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO.

3. For that on the facts and circumstances & legal position of the case, the addition of Rs.l0,95,712/-, being closing capital balance of the appellant as on 31.3.2023, made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of the balance-sheet as at 31.3.2013 without considering the opening capital of Rs.9,31,714/- as on 1.4.2012 and without reference to any books of accounts maintained by the appellant was bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO.

on or before the date of hearing of the appeal.”

3. Vide Ground no.1, the assessee has contested the action of the lower authorities in making / confirming the addition of Rs. 10,04,754/-.

4. The AO noted that the assessee had purchased a LIC policy of single premium of Rs.10,04,754/- on 24.01.2013. On being asked to explain the source of the said amount, the assessee explained before the Assessing Officer (in short “AO”) that the assessee got married on 14.06.2012. That the aforesaid amount was out of the cash gifts received from relatives and friends. The assessee submitted that as per the custom prevailing in his community, the relatives and friends make cash gifts to the newly married couple for their future wellbeing. On being asked to further explain in this respect, the assessee filed a list of 138 persons along with their names and addresses to the AO who had given small gifts ranging from Rs.9,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per person to the assessee. Only one gift of Rs.3,00,000/- was alleged to have been given by his grand mother. The AO, however, observed that the aforesaid contention of the assessee was not satisfactory, he, therefore, treated the aforesaid amount as income of the assessee from unexplained sources. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition as made by the AO.

Robin Agarwal AY 2013-14 5. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the records. In this case, there is no denial of the fact that the assessee got married during the Financial Year (FY) 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year (AY) 2013-14 under consideration. It is a common practice in India that invitees which included relatives and friends coming even from far flung areas give financial gifts to the married couple. The assessee has given list of 138 persons in this respect to the AO. However, the AO did not call for any verification from a single person and simply rejected the contentions of the assessee, which, in my view, was not justified. There is no denial of the fact that the assessee has got married during the year under consideration and the assessee might have received gifts from his relatives and friends on the said occasion. Considering that the assessee has given a large list of the relatives who had given gifts to the assessee and which evidence remained unrebutted in the assessment proceedings, therefore, I do not find justification on the part of the AO in making the impugned addition, the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.