RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL Vs. INCOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is assessee's appeal challenging judgment 14.12017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the ITAT') in ITA No. 238/JP/2017 and 249/JP/2017. Appellant-assessee filed its return of income on 303.2009 for assessment year 2008-09 showing income of Rs. 1,05,850/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') came to be issued on 30.03.2015 to the assessee on the ground that he had spent an amount of Rs. 58,77,000/- in the marriage of his daughter while income return filed by him was only of Rs. 1,05,850/-. The assessee filed its reply dated 27.04.2015 stating that original return may be treated to be his return filed in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act. In the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Alwar (for short 'the ITO') on 08.03.2016, addition of Rs. 58,02,000/-was made on account of unexplained marriage expenses. The ITO also noted that the assessee had received an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- as advance against land and an amount of Rs. 41,52,255/- as unsecured loans. Thus, total of Rs. 71,52,255/- was added in the returned income under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar [or short 'the CIT(A)'], who vide order dated 23.02017 confirmed the addition on account of unexplained marriage expenses only to the extent of Rs. 11,10,000/- on account of 1 kg. Gold brick received by the assessee's wife from her father-in-law many years back. As regards addition under Section 68 of the Act, CIT(A) deleted addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground of confirmation filed by the creditor M/s. City Star Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and the fact that the creditor had PAN No. AACCC7409C and that the money was received through banking channels. CIT(A) also deleted addition of Rs. 41,52,255/- on the ground that the source thereof was satisfactorily explained. The ITO filed appeal before the ITAT as also assessee filed cross appeal against confirmation of disallowance of Rs. 11,10,000/-. The ITAT vide its judgment dated 14.12017 confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- on account of unexplained marriage expenses on the ground that there was no evidence in the form of a will or gift deed to support the fact that a gold brick was given to the assessee's wife by her father-in-law many years back and that the affidavit filed in support thereof was from the assessee and not from either the donor or the donee. However, the ITAT reversed order of CIT(A) with regard to credit of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground that the filing of confirmation and the fact that money had been received from banking channels was not enough to discharge initial onus cast upon the assesee.

(2.) Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the ITAT erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- doubting the explanation of the assessee that the source of the amount was a gold brick given to the assessee's wife by her father-in-law, which was utilised to meet the expenses of the marriage. The occasion being the marriage of their daughter, the assessee's wife was also the parent of their daughter and had the social obligation to share in the expenses of her daughter's marriage. It is argued that the assessee had filed an affidavit to confirm the source of the amount of Rs. 11,10,000/- and the affidavit could not be rejected unless there was evidence to the contrary. If ITAT had any doubt, it at the maximum could have asked for affidavit of donor or donee in this regard. ITAT erred in holding that no will or gift deed had been filed whereas in earlier times, such documents were not prepared and gifting of gold items was common. Initial onus cast upon the assessee with regard to credit of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been discharged by the assessee when he filed a confirmation from the creditor, its PAN number and the proof that the money had come through banking channels.

(3.) Learned counsel argued that ITAT has erred in law in holding that no sale deed of the impugned land has been produced, whereas the ITAT as the highest fact finding body could have asked the appellant to produce the sale deed, which it never did. Copy of the sale deed and confirmation has been produced on record before this Court. It is argued that actual transfer of the said land took place on 07.10.2011 and was purchased by the party, which had given the advance of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the appellant.