Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 386 - AT - Income TaxReopening of the assessment - unexplained expenditure not supported by any evidence on the marriage ceremony and other ceremonial function of the daughter - Held that:- AO had initiated the proceedings u/s. 147 on the basis of the documentary evidence i.e. FIR filed by his daughter and TEP received from the Investigation Wing, which was confronted to the assessee and assessee himself admitted and not pressed on the issue of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the I.T. Act. In our considered opinion, the AO has rightly issued notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, after making necessary inquiry, in view of the TEP received from the Investigation Wing, New Delhi and after being satisfied found that it is a case where income has escaped assessment. He has also taken due approval from the competent authority, after applying their mind, the notice in dispute has been issued to the assessee. He has also recorded the reasons for such action. The AO has given his clear cut finding and satisfied himself before issuing of notice u/s. 148. The reasons were also provided to the assessee which are not based on mere suspicion and is on the basis of various documentary evidence. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Ld. First Appellate Authority has also appreciated the relevant provisions as well as the facts of the case and rightly upheld the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act in the case of the assesse. We are of the considered view that no interference is called for in the well reasoned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the finding given by him on the issue of assumption of jurisidciton u/s. 147 and notice u/s. 148 which is valid and as per law. - Decided against assessee. Unexplained expenditure made on the marriage ceremony of the assessee’s daughter under section 69 - Held that:- The daughter of the assesse namely Jyoti Kapoor was a victim of dowry harassment by her In-laws including her husband. She has also lodged FIR. The FIR has been registered by Smt. Jyoti Kapoor, D/o of the assessee under section 498A, 406, 506, 323/34 IPC on 7.5.2002 against her husband and other family members. No doubt that the daughter of the assessee has written that her father has incurred a huge expenditure on her marriage, but she has not produced any documentary evidence that huge expenditure has been incurred by her Father, before the police authorities. Assessee being the father, accordingly, remained under mental tension during the dispute between his family and the family of her daughter in law. When the dispute arise between both the parties, it is very much possible to file a complaint by the in-laws cited by the assessee’s daughter against the assessee for her harassment and they filed the complaint against the assessee for unexplained, unaccounted expenditure incurred by the assessee on the marriage of his daughter. But they have also not produced any evidence supporting the complaint made by them against the assessee. This generally happen in the quarrel in the matrimonial dispute. Lastly, both the parties mutually seek divorce and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has awarded ₹ 7 lacs to the assessee’s daughter on account of expenditure incurred by the assessee on the marriage of his daughter. Keeping in view of the above, mutual divorce granted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court by awarding ₹ 7 lacs on account of marriage expenditure incurred by the assessee on her daughter’s marriage, we are of the considered view that we are unable to hold that assessee has incurred more than ₹ 7 lacs expenditure on the marriage of his daughter for which the assessee has produced all the necessary evidence before the revenue authorities, which has not been properly appreciated by them. The AO had made the addition of ₹ 34,13,000/- under section 69 of the I.T. Act without any basis, based on presumption and assumption, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, we delete the addition of ₹ 34,13,000/-, which was wrongly made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided in favour of assessee.
|