2016 (3) TMI 446 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on photography and Band Baza - Held that - In this regard, as submitted that in the marriage of son, all the expenses on fooding and other marriage functions are incurred by the bride side and therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee because the marriage was of the son of the assessee and not of his daughter find force in this submission of the assessee. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has mentioned that evidence was found in course of search in the form of details of refreshment, lunch, dinner etc. but this is not sufficient to make addition because even in the case of marriage of the son, the details are agreed by both the sides but it is customary that the expenses are generally incurred by the bride side. The Assessing Officer has not examined the bride side before coming to this conclusion that the expenses are incurred by the assessee and not by the bride side. Apart from list of refreshment, lunch, dinner etc., there is no other mention of any evidence which could show that the expenses were incurred by the assessee and under these facts, in my considered opinion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer without bringing any cogent adverse material on record, is not sustainable. Addition on jewellery found - search and seizure - Held that - It is noted by the Assessing Officer in Para 5 of the assessment order that the jewellery found from the room of Smt. Radhika Dalmia and Shri Ashish Dalmia during the course or search was 420 gms. Gold jewellery and 6.90 Ct. precious stones and silver utensils 4 Kg. total value at ₹ 7,91,280/-. The Assessing Officer accepted the gold jewellery but made addition of ₹ 97,200/- being value of precious and semi precious stone of 6.90 Ct. and also value of silver utensils of 4 Kg. valued at ₹ 1,26,000/-. It was submitted by Shri Anand Kumar Dalmia, father of the assessee, that although all these items were found in the bedroom of Shri Ashish Dalmia and his wife Smt. Radhika Dalmia but no addition was made in the hands of Smt. Radhika Dalmia. He submitted a copy of the assessment order in the case of Smt. Radhika Dalmia in support of this contention. In my considered opinion, total jewellery and silver utensils of ₹ 7,91,280/- found from the bedroom of Shri Ashish Dalmia and Smt. Radhika Dalmia cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable and this much jewellery and silver jewellery are generally possessed by a married couple having been received from parents and relatives at the time of marriage and therefore, no addition should be made on this account. Hence addition deleted

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of expenses on account of fooding and rent of banquet hall for marriage functions.
2. Addition of value of precious and semi-precious stones and silver utensils found during search and seizure.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
In the case of Anand Kumar Dalmia HUF for assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer added expenses of fooding and rent of banquet hall for a marriage function. The assessee contested these additions, arguing that the expenses were borne by the bride's side as per tradition. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the expenses were incurred by the assessee and not the bride's side. The ITAT concluded that the additions were not sustainable without concrete proof and deleted them, allowing the appeal.

In the case of the same assessee for assessment year 2011-12, similar additions were made for another marriage function. Again, the ITAT found that the Assessing Officer did not present any adverse material to establish that the expenses were incurred by the assessee and not the bride's side. As a result, the ITAT deemed the additions unsustainable and deleted them, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2:
In the case of Ashish Kumar Dalmia, additions were made for the value of precious and semi-precious stones and silver utensils found during a search and seizure operation. The ITAT noted that the items found were within reasonable limits for a married couple, likely received as gifts during marriage. The ITAT found no justification for the additions made by the Assessing Officer and deleted them, allowing the appeal.

Similarly, in the case of Shri Abhishek Dalmia, additions were made for the value of jewellery found during search and seizure. The ITAT determined that the jewellery's value was reasonable and likely received as gifts during the marriage. The ITAT found no basis for the additions made and deleted them, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed all four appeals, finding the additions made by the Assessing Officer to be unsupported by sufficient evidence and not sustainable under the circumstances presented in each case.