TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 758X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 25-3-1991, regarding marriage expenses incurred of Rs. 5,01,100 at the time of assessee s son s marriage. It appears that the ADIT was satisfied with the source as well as the reasonableness of the wedding expenses incurred. But DDIT vide his report dated 25-3-1991 referred to the statement of Shri Sohanlal P. Vaid, grandfather of the bridegroom. While answering to Question No. 6, he stated that jewellery worth Rs. 10 lakhs was given from their side, i.e., bridegroom s side to Ms. Vandana bride. He also gave the broad description of the various items which were given on this occasion, which is as under : 1. Pearl Kantha 2. Diamond Necklace 3. Two diamond bangles 4. One diamond ring and a pair of diamond ear tops 5. Other gold jewellery items like necklace, bangles, rings, ear tops, baju band etc. 3. On 30-1-1991, a statement of Urmila Narayandas, aunty (father s younger brother s wife) of bridegroom was also recorded. In her statement, while answering to Question No. 22, she also stated that they had given to bride one gold set (necklace and a pair of ear rings) and diamond set (two bangles, one necklace and a pair of ear rings and one nathani). Sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese ceremonies were not covered by the ADIT s report. Therefore, cash withdrawal could be only sufficient to take care of these types of expenses. To justify this addition, he observed that the assessee is not from a middle class family but he belongs to a rich Marvari/business family who is arranging marriage in Five Star Hotels such as Taj Mahal in Bombay. 6. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and in the impugned order, the CIT(A) deleted the addition, firstly on the ground that the statement recorded during the action under section 133A cannot be used for the purpose of assessment or making addition to the income of the assessee, secondly, on merit, he accepted the contention of the assessee that Shri Sohanlal Vaid has not stated that he has purchased or gifted jewellery worth Rs. 10 lakhs to the bride. He also accepted the contention of the assessee that the assessee has purchased jewellery worth Rs. 3 lakhs in past two years. Because the assessee has substantiated the investments in jewellery at Rs. 2,87,661 from the known sources of income. The said investment was reflected in the wealth tax returns of income of the family members who are assessed to tax. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able that no item of jewellery was actually given to bride at the time of marriage (daughter-in-law of the assessee) when the marriage was solemnized at Taj Mahal Hotel, Mumbai. This is against the principle of human probabilities and if one apply the theory of human probabilities to all the facts and circumstances of the present case, the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs deserves to be restored. 10. The ld. counsel for the assessee on the other hand supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). The counsel filed a paper book containing 87 pages, which inter alia, include a statement of four persons recorded under section 133A(5) of the I.T. Act, confirmation of relatives whose jewellery was given to bridegroom at the time of marriage, correspondence of Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and copy of wealth tax and income-tax assessment order of Ms. Vandana Vaid for the assessment year 1991-92. The counsel for the assessee submitted that though after the marriage on 10-12-1990, the statement of four persons were recorded, the statement of the assessee (father of the bridegroom) was never recorded. Not only this, he was never examined by the Assessing Officer during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e given by Narayandas Vaid on 31-3-1991 in his statement which are as under : Rs. 50,000 paid to Shalimar Hotel-Kemp s Corner-Bombay-36. Out station invitees were staying for 3 to 4 days. We had hired 10 to 11 rooms (double occupancy of each room) rate per room was different according to the availability of room. The amount approximate. Bill has but not available with me now. Rs. 52,000 paid to Hindi Vidya Bhavan-Marine Lines. This amount consists of Rs. 25,000 paid to M/s. Trivedi, entertainment was 1 hours on 9-12-1990 at 5 to 7 P.M. Rs. 10,000 for food paid Mr. Satyanaraian Maharaj. Rs. 2,000 flower decoration. Rs. 1,000 Cold drink. Rs. 2,000 Catering charges. Rs. 12,000 Charges for the Hall to Hindi Vidya Bhavan being deposit. I have to take refund from Hindi Vidya Bhavan being excess payment made. Rs. 10,000 for Video film and camera paid to Sh. N.G. Sharma. Address is not now known. Rs. 25,000 Kitchen exp. at home for 4 to 5 days for providing food to the invitees. Rs. 2,100 for band and horse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2,87,661 15. In letter dated 11-3-1994 ( supra ), addressed to the Assessing Officer, Sh. R.P.S. Vaid, also stated that no member of the Vaid family has gifted jewellery to the bride Vandana on the occasion of marriage and whatever jewellery was given was Chadava, which was returned to various family members. In the impugned order, the CIT(A) has accepted this contention of the assessee. However, he also relied on the income-tax and wealth tax assessment order of Ms. Vandana Kedia (bridegroom). In the wealth tax assessment order, Ms. Vandana Kedia shown jewellery as per valuation report as on 31-1-1991 Rs. 3,08,737 whereas value as on 31-3-1990 was Rs. 28,320. In the income-tax assessment order, the addition of jewellery reflected are Rs. 2,05,047, as under : ( i ) Jewellery, diamond, silver etc. gifted by Mrs. Bimla Kedia : Rs. 97,897 ( ii ) Gift received from Surekha family, Cal. : Rs. 20,000 ( iii ) Out of assessee s own fund : Rs. 87,150 In the wealth tax assessment order, the Assessing Officer assessing Mrs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms if any received by her at the time of her marriage, which was solemnized with pump and show at Hotel Taj, Mumbai. This is because it is unbelievable that no item of jewellery was gifted to her from boy s side who belongs to well to do Agarwal Marwadi family. The CIT(A) whose powers are co-terminus with that of Assessing Officer, as held by the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate Ltd. [1964] 53 ITR 225 , if required, may also examine the assessee in this regard. 17. From the perusal of the assessment order, we find that the Assessing Officer has rejected the contention of the assessee that out of marriage expenses of Rs. 5,01,100 jewellery worth Rs. 2,25,000 was purchased. The detailed discussion regarding this contention in para 6 on page 6 of the assessment order, wherein, the Assessing Officer has stated that withdrawal shown by the bridegroom side is Rs. 5,01,100 is just sufficient to take care of many other customary, such as ( i ) Lagna, ( ii ) Bidai, ( iii ) ladies programmes for 5 to 10 days, etc. etc. This aspect was completely overlooked by the CIT(A) while deleting the entire addition of Rs. 10 lakhs. Since, now the matter is restored to his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
