9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised. The assessee claimed that he had incurred total expenses of Rs. 34,000 on the marriage of his daughter. However, the AO got inquiries made through his Inspector. It was found that the daughter of the assessee, viz., Smt. Sangeeta, had filed her WT returns for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1987-88 under the Amnesty Scheme at Jodhpur, wherein she had disclosed total wealth of Rs. 1,71,358 which also included the value of gold ornaments and jewellery at Rs. 1,25,558. She was married on 27th June, 1985. The AO also recorded the statement of the assessee who confirmed that his daughter was totally dependent on him upto the date of marriage and she had no independent source of income except the deposit of Rs. 14,500 with M/s Ramlal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A) in allowing partial relief and reducing the addition to Rs. 70,000 by recording the following finding in para 6 of the aforesaid order: "We have heard the rival submissions. In our opinion, here also, in the absence of any evidence having been adduced by the assessee to show that the statement of Sangeeta was false and in the absence of his adducing any evidence to the effect that the declarations in the wealth-tax returns although filed under the Amnesty Scheme made by Sangeeta with regard to asst. yr. 1985-86 when she was dependent on the assessee were false, we upheld the view of the learned CIT(A) to the effect that to the tune of Rs. 50,000, the ornaments and to the tune of Rs. 20,000, the other articles and movable assets ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition of Rs. 70,000. However, the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty in respect of addition of Rs. 36,000 on the ground that the same was based on mere estimate of expenses. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in quantum appeal where in para 6, the Tribunal has observed that the Revenue has not been able to adduce any evidence that all the ornaments had been given by the assessee himself particularly when Smt. Sangeeta stated that these had been received from the parents and parents-in-laws as well as from other relations. He also referred to the copy of statement of Smt. Sangeeta placed at pp. 10 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustify imposition of penalty until the Revenue establishes that the assessee was guilty of dishonest or contumacious conduct. Now, the fact remains that the addition has been made purely on the basis of jewellery disclosed by the assessee s daughter in her wealth-tax return. In her statement recorded by the AO (copy placed at pp. 10 to 12 of the paper book), Smt. Sangeeta had stated that only part of the ornaments were received from her father and the remaining ornaments were received from her in-laws and various other relations. The AO has not made any further inquiry with the relations to find out whether Smt. Sangeeta had actually received such ornaments from her other relations or not. Thus, it is quite obvious that there is no direct e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
