9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1071X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acceptable by the ld CIT(A) and we hereby confirm the same. Regarding gift of gold brick worth ₹ 11.10 lacs what we find is that the affidavit has been submitted by the assessee and not by either the so called donor (wife of the assessee) or by the donee (daughter of the assessee). Further, nothing has been brought on record in terms of will or gift deed by late Shri Musaddi lal (the original donor). In absence of any will or gift deed by the original donor and the fact that both the donor and the donee as so claimed have not submitted and filed any affirmative statement confirming such transaction as a gift transaction, the assessee’s contentions remain unsubstantiated and therefore, cannot be accepted. In the result, we affirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal taken by the assessee. Regarding estimated expenditure of ₹ 8.25 which the AO assumed to have been incurred on the occasion of the marriage, the AO has accepted the withdrawal of ₹ 9 lakhs from the assessee’s bank account on the occasion of the marriage, it is reasonable to hold that the assessee would have incurred the marriage expenditure out of such withdrawal. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as under:- ITA No . 238 / JP / 17 ( Ground of Assessee s appeal ):- 1 . That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld . CIT ( Appeals ) , Alwar erred in sustaining the addition of Rs . 11,10,000 /- even when source of this amount was fully explained . Accordingly, the addition of Rs . 11,10,000 /- deserves to be deleted . ITA No . 249 / JP / 17 ( Ground of Revenue s appeal ):- 1 . On facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld . Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) , Alwar has erred in restricting the addition of Rs . 58,02,000 /- to Rs . 11,10,000 /- which was made by the AO on account of expenses incurred by the assessee on the marriage of his daughter . 2 . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld . Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals ) , Alwar erred in deleting the addition of Rs . 71,52,255 /- made by the AO on account of advance against land and cash creditors . 2. Firstly, regarding groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplained due to non submission of the requisite detail/proofs and was brought to tax. Further the Assessing Officer estimated an amount of ₹ 8.25 lacs as expenses which are customary in nature and are essential for marriage ceremony and the same was brought to tax. Accordingly, an amount of ₹ 58.05 lac was added to the total income of the assessee and brought to tax. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) and submitted as under:- 5 . The appellant belongs to middle class family, as such the expenditure in marriage was not exorbitant or very high . The details of expenditure contributed by the family members are as under :- Raghu Nandan Goyal ( Self ) ACBPG 7449Q Rs . 9,00,000 /- Smt . Sudesh Bala Goyal ( Wife ) AFGPG 7085N Rs . 8,40,000 /- Deepmalika Goyal ( Daughter ) AEVPG 6846F Rs . 95,000 /- Meena Goyal ( Daughter ) AEVPG 6845G Rs . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of about 84 years. He carried on sarafa business under the name M/s Musaddi Lal Sons for over 50 years and in the year 1997 when he was about 79 years old, he closed the business and gave one Kg. gold brick, ginni (gold coin) etc. to my wife who was looking after him during his old age. The gold brick was owned by Late Shri Musaddi Lal (Grandfather of Meena Agarwal) for several years even prior to 1997. In the year 1997, the rate of gold was about ₹ 4500/- per 10 gms and prior to that it was ₹ 2000-2500 per 10 gms.. These items were given in the marriage to Meena Agarwal. I am enclosing herewith list of gold rates during those years as Annexure-C. 10. The AO further erred in overlooking the fact that the family of the appellant is large having seven brothers, their wives, their sons, sons wives in case of married sons and giving of items of gold/silver/household goods/cash/other items etc. during different occasions of marriage like Lagan, Ladies Sangeet, Mehandi is customary and usual. As such, the non acceptance of ₹ 25,91,000/- by the AO is totally against the facts of the case. 11. So far as the marriage expenses of ₹ 8,25,000/- as detailed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the part of the AO for rejecting the claim of the appellant without disproving the evidences given by the appellant during the assessment proceedings . The appellant has also claimed that a total of Rs . 5,51,751 /- were received as cash gifts from distant relatives and friends, I have considered the fact that it is customary that distant relatives and friends also give gifts to the bride and groom on the occasion of the marriage ceremony and it is difficult to keep a record of small gift items including cash gifts from so many invitees after a lapse of more than 7 years . Marriage took place in the year 2008 and the case reopened in the year 2015 . Considering the status of the family and the occasion, it is my considered view that gifts claimed to have been received from the distant family members and friends amounting to Rs . 5,51,751 /- is reasonable . In view of the above facts and discussion, addition of Rs . 23 . 86 lakhs is not justified and hence, deleted . 2 . Value of the gifts as per the content of the FIR worth Rs . 25 . 91 Lakhs : I have taken into consideration that the AO has relied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urred on tent, foods and other related items . The AO valued it at Rs . 8 . 25 lakhs . However, I have also considered the fact the AO has accepted the withdrawal of Rs . 9 lakhs from his capital account on the occasion of the marriage . Therefore, in fitness of things, it is reasonable to infer that the cost of marriage expenses would have been met out of withdrawal made by the appellant from his bank accounts which has been accepted by the AO . Therefore, addition of Rs . 8 . 25 lakh is not justified . Accordingly, the addition of Rs . 8 . 25 lakhs is deleted . 6. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the submissions made before him regarding expenditure incurred out of kanyadhan and other gifts received from family and close relatives and the relief has rightly been allowed by him. Regarding addition of ₹ 11,10,000/- which relates to Gold brick of 1 kg valued at prevalent price, which was not accepted by the ld. CIT(A) for the reasons that no credible evidence has been given either during the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Meena Agarwal) who was in Sarafa business and who had given the same to assessee s wife before he died in year 2002 and now, the same has been gifted further by his wife to their daughter on the occasion of her marriage. It is not in dispute that assessee s daughter has received by way of gift a gold brick worth ₹ 11.10 lacs as per present value on occasion of her marriage. It is contended that it is assessee s wife who has gifted the gold brick to her daughter and not the assessee. It is further contended that the source of such gold brick in the hands of his wife is again gift of such gold brick received from her father-in-law who was in Sarafa business. What we find is that the affidavit has been submitted by the assessee and not by either the so called donor (wife of the assessee) or by the donee (daughter of the assessee). Further, nothing has been brought on record in terms of will or gift deed by late Shri Musaddi lal (the original donor). In absence of any will or gift deed by the original donor and the fact that both the donor and the donee as so claimed have not submitted and filed any affirmative statement confirming such transaction as a gift transaction, the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted. Further regarding the cash creditors, it was submitted that only two amounts of ₹ 3,50,000 and ₹ 1,64,093 were received during the year and rest all amount were carried forward from the earlier years. The relevant submission of the assessee is reproduced as under: 2 . Further the following amounts in the balance sheet as on 31 . 3 . 2008 totaling Rs . 41,52,255 /- were treated as unexplained by the AO -. S . No . Name As on 31 . 3 . 2008 As on 31 . 3 . 2007 1 Amar Chand Jain HUF 13,50,000 /- 17,50,000 /- 2 Ram Pratap Katta Sons 8,20,071 /- 8,20,071 /- 3 Prabhu Dayal 5,00,000 /- 5,00,000 /- 4 Brijmohan 1,80,000 /- 1,80,000 /- 5 Shankar Co . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41,52,255 /- an amount of Rs . 40,38,162 /- is coming from the balance sheet of earlier year which is already in the possession of the AO and previous years cases were also decided in the scrutiny and the balances were accepted as genuine . That during the year under consideration only an amount of Rs . 3 . 5 lakh was received from Smt . Deepmalika, who is daughter of the assessee and an existing IT assessee and Rs . 1,64,093 /- received from M / s Shankar Co which is proprietary concern of the appellant himself . 6 . 3 . 2 I have considered the above mentioned facts and found that there is no justification of addition of Rs . 71,52,255 /- as all necessary details along with the confirmations have been filed both during the assessment proceedings and the appellate stage . All of them are existing income tax assesses . Accordingly, the addition of Rs . 71,52,255 /- is deleted and the appellant s ground of appeal on this issue is allowed . 15. The ld. D/R is heard who has supported the order of the Assessing officer. 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
