TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the time deserves to be set aside. 2. That appellant craves your leave to add, amend, and substitute the said ground before at time of hearing of appeal." 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case, information available to the ld. AO that the assessee has spent approx. Rs. 50 lakhs on marriage of his daughter, Smt. Roshni Singhvi which was happened on 09.05.2011. The fact related to dispute in this appeal is that the assessee regarding the source of marriage contended that his father deposited certain amount with Ambe Associates from where he withdrew the amount and deposited in fixed deposit for future liabilities. From the copy of the pass book, it appears that he encashed the fixed deposit at the time of house warming of in Jaipur in 2007. So, instead of giving the assessee to cash he preferred to buy a diamond set for her granddaughter as per copy of the bill given to the assessee at the time of such presentation of diamond set. As per the copy of bill it appears that he has made the payment of Rs. 3 lac against bill of Rs. 3,16,617/- in view of this explanation, it is requested that the gift of diamond set estimated value of Rs. 5 lac ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... family tradition and in token of his love and affection for my son, he gifted the said diamond set to my son on the eve of his House warming ceremony." I also perused copy of bill which was pasted by the AO in the assessment order wherein it appears that the father of appellant had made payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- against bill of Rs. 3,16,617/- but addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made by the AO which is unjustifiable, in view of affidavit supported by the proof of purchase. In view of the facts and discussion made as above, it is held hereby that the AO was not justified in making addition on account of estimated value of diamond set at Rs. 5,00,000/- as the payment was made at Rs. 3,00,000/- only. Thus, the addition made by the AO at Rs. 5,00,000/- is restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/-. The appellant gets relief of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The ground of appeal raised by the appellant regarding this issue is partly allowed." 5. As the assessee did not find favour fully from the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal on the ground as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds so raised by the ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO was not justified in making addition on account of estimated value of diamond set at Rs. 500000/- as the payment was made at Rs. 300000/- only. Thus the addition made by the AO at Rs. 500000/- to Rs. 300000/-The appellant gets relief of Rs. 2,00, 000/- The ground of appeal raised by the by the appellant regarding this issue is partly allowed." 3) This order for maintenance of addition of to my income was not in the line with the observation made by the learned CIT (Appeals), Jodhpur in opening part of 5 lines of Para 6.2 / page 6. As such, the present appeal is preferred against the order of maintenance of addition of Rs. 300000/- (reduced to Rs. 200000/- on my application u/s 154 discussed below) The learned CIT (Appeals) endorsed this fact of bill of purchases and affidavit of my mother due to death of my father in January 2016 for purchase of diamond set by my father in 2007 in his appeal order u/s 250 dated 15/10/2019. His observation is in last 5 lines of Para 6.2 of his order which is stated as under: "I also perused copy of bill which was pasted by the AO in the assessment order wherein it appears that the father had made payment of Rs. 300000 against bill of Rs. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....casion to revert back to provisions of Section 250(1) of the Act. If contentions raised in the application u/s 154 are considered it shall be reviewing/ reverting back to appellate order." 6) The learned CIT (Appeals) has also referred to decision of P & H High Court in the case of Anil Goel vs. CIT (2007) 165 ___MAN 46 (Pun & HAR) where it is held non-recording of reasons by Commissioner (Appeals) in support of order passed by him, would not amount to committing any illegality. The issues raised for rectification is hereby rejected. 8) Finally, in Para (3) of the order made under section 154 (Annexure 1) the learned CIT (Appeals) admits that mistake has crept in stating the facts of the case and states that on perusal of the appeal folders, I find that it was only a typographical mistake which is rectifiable. Therefore, the above said portion of Pra 6.2 is substituted by following lines: "In view of the facts and discussion made as above, it is held hereby that the AO was not justified in making addition on account of estimated value of diamond set at Rs. 5,00,000 as the payment was made at Rs. 300000/- which was proved by the appellant. Thus, the addition made by the AO is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition of Rs. 200000/- maintained by the order of learned CIT (Appeals) deserves to be deleted straight way." 6. To support this contention reliance was placed on the following evidences: 1 Written submission 1-4 2 Form 36: From of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal 5-8 3 Statement of Facts and grounds of appeal 8-8 4 Order of CIT (Appeals) dated 06.12.2019 under sec. 154 (Annexure 1) 9-11 5 Application dated 19.11.2019 under section 154 (Annexure II) 12-13 6 Appeal order under sec 250 dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure III) 14-34 7 Assessment order dated 29.12.2017 (Annexure IV) 35-46 7. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The only issue in the present appeal is that whether the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is correct or not. The fact related to the dispute is that the assessee contended she has given the diamond set to his daughter and the value of the that diamond set was estimated in 2011 at Rs. 5 lac. So, instead of giving the assessee to cash his father preferred to buy a diamond set for her granddaughter as per copy ....