TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee could not give details of marriage expenses incurred by him and has claimed the entire gifts received as cash lying with him. Thus, as far as the cash of ₹ 20,45,400/- is concerned, given the fact that the assessee was asked to substantiate his stand by the Ld. CIT (A) by providing numerous opportunities and many queries were raised by the Ld. CIT(A), which the assessee has failed to reply, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a proper finding of fact that this cash of ₹ 20,45,400/- was rightly added as unexplained amount u/s 69 of the Act. As far as the remaining cash balance of ₹ 10,38,000/- is concerned, it is seen that no explanation was given from the assessee in this regard. In this case also it is seen that the assessee has not responded to the queries raised by the Ld. CIT (A) and, therefore, this amount also deserves to be added back to the income of the assessee and we find the action of the Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the addition as correct. In so far as the contention of the assessee that the opening cash balance brought from the earlier years cannot be challenged in the year under consideration is concerne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee s marriage was solemnised in July 2007 and on the occasion of marriage, he had received ₹ 20,45,400/- as gift from various friends and relatives which was kept as cash in hand during the previous financial year and deposited in the bank only during the year under consideration for the purpose of purchase of property and investment in shares. However, the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that this submission was only an afterthought as the assessee had not filed any wealth tax return for assessment year 2008-09 in respect of the cash of ₹ 20,45,400/-. The Assessing Officer also noted that no list of friends and relatives had also been filed in respect of alleged gifts received at the time of marriage. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee could not explain the source of remaining cash deposits of ₹ 10,38,000/- (Rs. 30,83,400/- minus ₹ 20,45,400/-). The Assessing Officer proceeded to conclude that the entire cash deposits amounting to ₹ 30,83,400/- remained unsubstantiated and he proceeded to treat the same as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 2.1 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er consideration and, therefore, the same could not have been added to the income in this year. The Ld. AR drew our attention to pages 27-62 of the Paper Book and submitted that these pages contain the list of people who had given cash gifts on the occasion of marriage of the assessee. It was submitted that the cash which was deposited in bank represented the opening cash balance brought forward from last year and, therefore, the same cannot be challenged in the current year. Reliance was placed on a number of judgments of the various Hon ble Courts in support of this contention of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessee was a regular income tax return filer and it was not the case that this was the first year of filing of return. It was also submitted that the fact that marriage of assessee had taken place was also not disputed. It was submitted that the addition should be deleted. 4. In response, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the transaction in respect of the entire deposits in the bank. It was also submitted that the assessee had not been filing statement of affairs in the preceding years which could substantiate t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically mentioned that no list of friends and relatives was filed before him. The Ld. CIT(A), while rejecting the evidentiary value of the list, has also noted that the list is written in one handwriting and in one flow whereas the gifts related to two different functions sagan and shadi . The Ld. CIT (A) has made some other observations also regarding the evidentiary value of the list in Para 8.5 of the impugned order and after going through the same, we find that the Ld. CIT (A) has reached a correct finding that this list cannot be relied upon as a piece of evidence and that the same deserves to be rejected. The Ld. CIT (A) has further discussed in Para 8.1 that the assessee was required by him to specify the quantum of expenses incurred by him towards his wedding ceremony and also specify what gifts were given by the assessee to others during the year under consideration as well as three earlier years but no details were forthcoming from the assessee even after giving opportunity in this regard. Thus, it is seen that the assessee could not give details of marriage expenses incurred by him and has claimed the entire gifts received as cash lying with him. Thus, as far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
