9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tnership firm without any evidence. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the following additions made by the Learned Assessing Authority. a. Marriage Expenses of Partner's daughter 35,06,000/- b. Alleged Inflated salary 6,25,210/- 4. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition of estimated marriage expenses of Rs. 35,06,000/- on the basis of rough piece of paper without any supporting evidence. 5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not taking into consideration the following sources for marriage expense. a) Payment from personal saving bank A/c 2,18,081/- b) Contribution by Mr. Ram Avtar 5,80,000/- c) Sagan from relatives & Friends 15,10,800/- d) Personal source of Mrs. Mukta Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenged the addition of Rs. 35,06,000/- added on account of unexplained marriage expenses on the basis that the Assessing Officer had not considered the following sources for meeting the marriage expenses. i) Payment from persoan bank A/c & Savings. 2,18,081/- ii) Contribution by Mr. Ram Avtar 5,80,000/- iii) Shagan From relatives & Friends 15,10,800/- iv) Persona Sources of Mrs. Mukta Gupta & Mrs. Vaishali Gupta 1,85,000/- v) Personal svings of Mr. Subhash Gupta 45,000/- 25,38,881/- The assessee enclosed with his submissions a list of alleged cash and other gifts received at the time of marriage alongwith confirmations of the persons who had allegedly given the gifts. The assessee also filed cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nditure on clothes, jewellery and gifts or any expenditure on catering, tents on the marriage functions. The list only includes expenditure on dry fruits, silver items, quilt, suitcase, electronic items, clothes, and not on jewellery and on reception etc. Besides, the two bills enclosed by the assessee shows that there is gap of 5 days between the function held on 13th and that held on 17th. Thus there were other marriage ceremonies/ functions in the intervening days and from the bills it is apparent that they are not the bills on account of the main marriage ceremony. The claim of the assessee that the expense on marriage is explained as it has been met out of withdrawals and gifts from relatives and friends was not accepted by the CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on oath. The Ld. AR submitted that no addition can be made on the basis of the statement unless the same is supported by any evidence. The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws wherein it was held that the statements given by the assessee on oath during search could not be treated as of evidentiary value in assessment, as the assessee had retraced these statements. The case laws relied upon are as follows: i) CIT V Dr. N. Thippa Setty 525 ITR 322 (Karn) ii) CIT V M/s. Dhingra Metal Works 2010 TIOL 693 HC Del-IT iii) Paul Mathews & Sons V CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) iv) Kader Khan 300 ITR 157 (Mad) v) S Arjun Singh V CWT 1989 175 ITR 91 vi) Asst. CIT V Monorajyam 1996 54 TTJ 97 (Coch) vii) Ashok Manilal Thakkar V A. CIT 2005 97 ITD 361(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court in case of Girdhari Lal Nannelal Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. (1977) 109 ITR 726 (SC) wherein it was held that in the absence of any material, the mere absence of explanation regarding the source of the expenses would not justify the conclusion that the sum in dispute represented profits of the firm derived from undisclosed sales. 9. The Ld. AR submitted in respect of the disallowance of the salary of Rs. 6,25,210/- that the visiting official did not check the attendance record for verification of employees who have left the job or were on outside duty during the survey. The assessee was not allowed to consult his accountant or check the firm record for verification of salary paid to each employees. In many cases salary expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. The Ld. DR also submitted the case laws referred by the Ld. AR are not relevant. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant documents. The assessee is a partnership firm. The submission of the Ld. AR that any personal expenditure incurred in the individual capacity cannot be treated as income of the firm on the basis of confessional statement of one of the partner. There was no evidence to prove that the firm paid any amount to Sh. Subhash Gupta out of its undisclosed income. The income has been added on assumption basis. If any income has to be added it should have been taken in the hands of the concerned partner instead of the firm. No evidence / material was found to prove the existence of such income of earnings in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
