AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is assessee’s appeal challenging judgment 14.11.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short ‘the ITAT’) in ITA
No. 238/JP/2017 and 249/JP/2017.Â
Appellant-assessee filed its return of income on 31.03.2009 for assessment year 2008-09 showing income of Rs. 1,05,850/-. A notice under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) came to be issued on 30.03.2015 to the assessee on the ground that he had spent an
amount of Rs. 58,77,000/- in the marriage of his daughter while income return filed by him was only of Rs. 1,05,850/-. The assessee filed its reply
dated 27.04.2015 stating that original return may be treated to be his return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. In the
assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Alwar (for short ‘the ITO’) on 08.03.2016, addition of Rs. 58,02,000/-was
made on account of unexplained marriage expenses. The ITO also noted that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- as advance
against land and an amount of Rs. 41,52,255/- as unsecured loans. Thus, total of Rs. 71,52,255/- was added in the returned income under Section 68
of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar [or short ‘the CIT(A)’], who vide order dated
23.01.2017 confirmed the addition on account of unexplained marriage expenses only to the extent of Rs. 11,10,000/- on account of 1 kg. Gold brick
received by the assessee’s wife from her father-in-law many years back. As regards addition under Section 68 of the Act, CIT(A) deleted
addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground of confirmation filed by the creditor M/s. City Star Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and the fact that the creditor had
PAN No. AACCC7409C and that the money was received through banking channels. CIT(A) also deleted addition of Rs. 41,52,255/- on the
ground that the source thereof was satisfactorily explained. The ITO filed appeal before the ITAT as also assessee filed cross appeal against
confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 11,10,000/-. The ITAT vide its judgment dated 14.11.2017 confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- on account
of unexplained marriage expenses on the ground that there was no evidence in the form of a will or gift deed to support the fact that a gold brick was
given to the assessee’s wife by her father-in-law many years back and that the affidavit filed in support thereof was from the assessee and not
from either the donor or the donee. However, the ITAT reversed order of CIT(A) with regard to credit of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground that the
filing of confirmation and the fact that money had been received from banking channels was not enough to discharge initial onus cast upon the
assesee.Â
Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the ITAT erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- doubting the
explanation of the assessee that the source of the amount was a gold brick given to the assessee’s wife by her father-in-law, which was utilised to
meet the expenses of the marriage. The occasion being the marriage of their daughter, the assessee’s wife was also the parent of their
daughter and had the social obligation to share in the expenses of her daughter’s marriage. It is argued that the assessee had filed an affidavit
to confirm the source of the amount of Rs. 11,10,000/- and the affidavit could not be rejected unless there was evidence to the contrary. If ITAT
had any doubt, it at the maximum could have asked for affidavit of donor or donee in this regard. ITAT erred in holding that no will or gift deed had
been filed whereas in earlier times, such documents were not prepared and gifting of gold items was common. Initial onus cast upon the assessee
with regard to credit of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been discharged by the assessee when he filed a confirmation from the creditor, its PAN number and the
proof that the money had come through banking channels.Â
Learned counsel argued that ITAT has erred in law in holding that no sale deed of the impugned land has been produced, whereas the ITAT as the
highest fact finding body could have asked the appellant to produce the sale deed, which it never did. Copy of the sale deed and confirmation has
been produced on record before this Court. It is argued that actual transfer of the said land took place on 07.10.2011 and was purchased by the
party, which had given the advance of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the appellant.Â
Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and argued that the appellant-assessee cannot for the first time be
permitted to file documents like sale deed and its confirmation before this Court, which documents were not produced before the ITAT. The ITAT
did not therefore have the advantage to look into those documents and to examine whether or not they would have any bearing on the matter.Â
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record and considering the fact that sale deed (Annexure-4) and its
confirmation letter pertain to the relevant period showing sale of the property by the assessee to M/s. City Star Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., we deem it
appropriate to set aside the judgment passed by the ITAT and remit the matter back to ITAT to examine the same afresh in the light of aforesaid
documents and pass fresh judgment in the appeal in accordance with law.Â
In view of above, present appeal is disposed of. Impugned judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the ITAT is set aside and the matter is remitted back
to the ITAT to examine the matter afresh in the light of aforesaid documents and pass fresh order in the appeal in accordance with law.Â
Stay Application No. 1737/2018 stands disposed of.Â