2016 (12) TMI 1354 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of unexplained marriage expenses - Held that - As in case of Girdhari Lal Nannelal Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. (1976 (3) TMI 51 - SUPREME Court) wherein it was held that in the absence of any material, the mere absence of explanation regarding the source of the expenses would not justify the conclusion that the sum in dispute represented profits of the firm derived from undisclosed sales. The said case law apply in the present case as the explanation was given by the Assessee during the assessment proceedings but the documents which were shown was not taken congnizance by the Assessing Officer for the expenses incurred. The statement of the partner cannot be the sole criteria for making an addition. Thus the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the addition in the hands of the Assessee firm. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of the salary - Held that - No discrepancy was pointed out in the salary expenses claimed by the assessee or the item of any inflated salary. The Assessing Officer has disregarded the books of accounts produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Act and other primary record solely on the ground that the assessee has made a confessional statement during the survey proceedings and voluntary payment of tax against the income from undisclosed source surrendered during the survey proceedings. The copy of the attendance register with details of salary was submitted during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any payment which is in excess of the actual payment in the assessment order. Thus the relevant material to establish the genuineness of the assessee firm was established which was overlooked by the CIT(A) as well as by the Assessing Officer. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the CIT(A) order.
2. Treatment of personal expenses of a partner as firm expenses.
3. Addition of marriage expenses of the partner’s daughter.
4. Addition of alleged inflated salary expenses.
5. Consideration of sources for marriage expenses.
6. Verification of marriage expenses and related evidence.
7. Disallowance of salary expenses.
8. Assessment based on the partner's statement.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the CIT(A) Order:
The appellant claimed that the CIT(A) order dated 19/11/2013 was "bad in law and on the facts of the case." This broad assertion was foundational to the appeal, challenging the legal soundness and factual basis of the CIT(A)'s decision.

2. Treatment of Personal Expenses:
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in treating personal expenses of a partner as expenses of the partnership firm without any supporting evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ?35,06,000/- for marriage expenses and ?6,25,210/- for alleged inflated salary, which the appellant contested.

3. Addition of Marriage Expenses:
The appellant disputed the addition of ?35,06,000/- for marriage expenses based on a rough piece of paper, arguing that the Assessing Officer did not consider several sources of funds for these expenses. The sources included personal savings, contributions from relatives, and gifts from friends. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, noting the lack of substantial evidence like bills, photographs, or detailed expenditure records to support the appellant's claims.

4. Addition of Alleged Inflated Salary:
The CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ?6,25,210/- for alleged inflated salary expenses. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not verify the attendance register or other records to substantiate the claim of inflated salaries. The CIT(A) found that the appellant failed to produce receipts or vouchers for salary payments, thus supporting the addition.

5. Consideration of Sources for Marriage Expenses:
The appellant provided details of various sources amounting to ?25,38,881/- to explain the marriage expenses. These sources included personal savings, contributions from Mr. Ram Avtar, and gifts from relatives and friends. The CIT(A) dismissed these claims due to insufficient supporting evidence and maintained the addition of ?35,06,000/-.

6. Verification of Marriage Expenses:
The CIT(A) requested detailed evidence such as bills, photographs, and guest lists to verify the marriage expenses. The appellant failed to provide comprehensive documentation, only submitting two bills for minor expenses. The CIT(A) concluded that the expenses claimed did not align with the total marriage cost, confirming the addition.

7. Disallowance of Salary Expenses:
The appellant argued that the disallowance of ?6,25,210/- for salary expenses was unjustified as the Assessing Officer did not verify the attendance register or consult with the staff. The appellant claimed that the salary expenses were genuine and supported by the attendance register. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, citing the appellant's failure to produce payment receipts.

8. Assessment Based on Partner's Statement:
The appellant contended that the additions were based solely on the statement of one partner, Mr. Subhash Gupta, without corroborating evidence. The appellant cited several case laws to argue that statements made during surveys should not be treated as conclusive without supporting evidence. The CIT(A) and Assessing Officer relied on the partner's statement, which the appellant claimed was retracted and unsupported by material evidence.

Conclusion:
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) and Assessing Officer erred in relying solely on the partner's statement without substantial evidence. The ITAT held that personal expenses incurred by a partner should not be treated as firm expenses without proof. Additionally, the ITAT noted that the appellant provided reasonable explanations and sources for the marriage expenses, which were not adequately considered by the lower authorities. The disallowance of salary expenses was also found to be unsupported by concrete evidence. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal, reversing the additions made by the CIT(A).

Judgment:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 20th October 2016.

← Previous Next →