Smt. Usha Gupta, New Delhi V. ITO, Gurgaon

ITA 1691/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4785 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA; SOMIL AGARWAL ADVS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO . 1 691/DEL./201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA C/O M/S R RA TAX INDIA D 28, SOUTH EX PART I NEW DELHI 110 049 PAN: AAUPG 9187 E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1(2) GURGAON (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : DR.RAKESH GUPTA AND SH. SOMIL AGARWAL, ADVS. FOR REVENUE : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16.8. 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.8. 2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 2 , GURGAON DATED 28.01.2016 FOR THE A.Y. 200 4 - 05, CHALLENGING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,36,500/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.32,36,500/ - ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADIT, GURGAON, THE A.O. REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 14 8 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS. THE REASONS ARE REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH IT IS BRIEFLY ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 2 NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME O F RS.74,790/ - ON 17 TH SEPTEMBER,2004 , AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.55 LAKHS (RS.50 LAKHS ON 21 ST JUNE, 2003 AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER MISS CHETNA + RS.3 LAKHS GIVEN TO SHRI SUREND ER AGGARWAL, FATHER IN LAW OF MISS CHETNA + RS.2 LAKHS AT THE TIME OF BIRTH CEREMONY OF HER GRAN D SON BORN ON 15 TH MARCH, 2004. DURING THE COURSE OF TAX EVASION PETITION PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF MONEY AS PER WHICH ONLY RS.14,00,00 0 / - ( (RS.9,00,000/ - WITHDRAWN FROM CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE + RS.5,00,000/ - WITHDRAWN FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF MS.CHETNA, DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE), STANDS EXPLAINED AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.41,00,000/ - REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. ON THE BASIS OF THESE REASONS, THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF HER DAUGHTER AND SOURCES OF EXPENSES. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED WERE RS.46,05,000/ - WHICH HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED THROUGH VARIOUS SOURCES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT OTHER THAN THE ABOVE AMOUNT APPROXIMATELY RS.5.50 LAKHS WERE SPENT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ON ROKA CEREMONY. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. NOTED IN HIS FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.55 LAKHS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT . D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 3 PROVED CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.10,58,500/ - FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHDRAWAL OF RS.7 LAKHS FROM THE ACCOUNT OF HER DAUGHTER SMT.CHETNA AGG ARWAL. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TRADITIONS AND STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, KANYADAN OF RS.3,05,000/ - AND ASSISTANCE OF RS.2 LAKHS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WERE ALSO AC CEPTED. SO THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVE THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.22,63,500/ - ONLY OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.55,00,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY AT RS.22 LAKHS BUT NO SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS REGARD. TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A WILL AS PER WHICH ALL THE MOVABLE/IMMOVABLE ASSETS OF SMT.CHANDA DEVI WAS PASSED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSETS. THEREFORE, BALANCE OF RS.32,36,500/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TAXABL E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SOURCES OF THE EXPENSES ARE NOT PROVED. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT RS.5.50 LAK HS WERE SPENT IN ROKA CEREMONY IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.). THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE EXCLUDED . OF THE BALANCE OF RS.26,86,500/ - REMAINING, RS.22 LAKHS WAS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BEING ATTRIBUTED TO THE VALUE ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 4 OF JEWELLERY GIVEN TO HER DAU GHTER ON THE OCCASION OF MARRIAGE. THE LIST OF JEWELLERY IS MENTIONED IN THE FIR . THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY WAS RECEIVED FROM MOTHER - IN - LAW THROUGH WILL WERE: (I) GOLD & DIAMOND NECKLACE : 150 GRAMS (RECEIVED BY WILL FROM GRAN D MOTHER OF BRIDE) . OTHER JEW ELLERY POSSESSED ARE : A SSESSEE: GOLD NECKLACE 120 GMS; KUNDAN JEWELLERY : 60 GMS; DIAMOND NOSE RING : 20 GMS; DIAMOND MAANG TIKA : 20 GMS; BANGLE : 60 GMS; GOLD SET: 50 GMS; TAGDI : 150 GMS : TOTAL: 480 GMS. DAUGHTER: GOLD CHAIN WITH PENDANT : 30 GMS; DIA MOND EAR RING: 50 GMS; BANGLES:110 GMS TOTAL 190 GRAMS ; FATHER: GOLD CHAIN FOR GROOM : 30 GMS ; GOLD BRACELET: 40 GMS TOTAL:70 GMS. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE JEWELLERY THUS GIVEN AT THE MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER CAN REASONABLY BE ATTRIBUTED T O BELONGING TO THE ABOVE PERSONS AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1916 - 1994 , DATED 11 TH MAY, 1994 WHICH TREATS 500 GMS OF JEWELLERY PER MARRIED LADY, 250 GMS PER UNMARRIED LADY AND 100 GMS PER MALE MEMBER AS REASONABLY ACQUIRED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGU RES GIVEN IN THE FIR WERE ONLY AN APPROXIMATE AND FIR WAS LODGED BY DAUGHTER NOT THE ASSESSEE . P OSSIBLY DAUGHTER MAY NOT BE AWARE ABOUT THE EXACT EXPENSES INCURRED BY H ER . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ACTUAL AMOUNT INCURRED IN THE MARRIAGE OF DAU GHTER WAS RS.46,05,000/ - , THEREFORE, AS AGAINST ESTIMATE OF RS.5 5 LAKHS MADE BY THE A.O. THE ADDITION OF RS.8,95,000/ - IS WHOLLY ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 5 UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WIDOW AND HAS ONLY ONE CHILD WHO WAS MARRIED AND LATER ON THERE I S A BREAKDOWN OF THE MARRIAGE DUE TO MATRIMON IAL DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE S HUSBAND DIED IN ROAD ACCIDENT BEFORE THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER AND THE WEALTH AND PROPERTIES WERE INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ACCUMULATED JEWELLERY FROM TIME TO TIME AS EXPLAINED ABOVE. NO AMOUNT WAS SPENT FOR PU RCHASE OF JEWELLERY. THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF RS.22 LA K HS WAS GIVEN FOR OLD JEWELLERY. SINCE NO ACTUAL AMOUNT WAS SPENT ON PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY, THEREFORE, ESTIMATE MADE BY THE A.O. IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE A.O. ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E AS REGARDS WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER OF RS. 10,58,500/ - AND RS.7,00,000/ - BUT THE ACTUAL WITHDRAWALS ARE RS. 11 LAKHS AND RS. 8 LAKHS FOR WHICH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT TO STATE THAT NO NEW JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED DURING THE MARRIAGE AND IT WAS OBTAINED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. COPY OF CERTIFICATE FROM RAM JEWELLERY PALACE WAS FILED FROM WHERE OLD JEWELLERY WAS GOT CLEANED AND POLISHED. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FRO M THE A.O. THE A.O. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDING EXAMINED THE GOLDSMITH SHRI RAMJI S/OF SHRI TARA CHANDER PROP. OF M/S RAM JEWELLERY PALACE IN WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED HAVING ISSUED BILL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THIS BILL WAS FOR CLEANING AND POLISHING OF ORNAMEN TS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN TOTO, BECAUSE, AS PER ESTIMATE /BILL THE ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 6 JEWELLERY MAY NOT APPEAR TO BE OF RS.22 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN OTHER JEWELLERY IN THE MARRIAGE BESIDES TH E JEWELLERY WHICH WAS CLEANED AN D POLISHED FROM M/S RAM JEWELLERY PALACE, NEW DELHI. THE A.O. ALSO STATED THAT THE BILL ON ROKA CEREMONY AT RADISSON HOTEL DELHI DT. 9.2.2003 FOR RS.8,776/ - AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE EXTENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE ROKA CEREMONY. 2.2. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND REMAND REPORT, CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATE OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES AT RS.55,00,000/ - BECAUSE THE FIGURE WAS MENTIONED IN THE FIR. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,5 0 ,000/ - SPENT ON ROKA CEREMONY IT WAS FOUND THAT IT WAS HELD ON 9.2.2003 I.E. IN THE PRECEDING A.Y. AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED FOR CLAIMING EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,50,000/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) , THEREFORE REDUCED THE EXPENDITURE TO RS.2 LAKHS AND NOTED THAT SINCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, THEREFORE, ADDITION IN THE CURRENT YEAR HAS BEEN DELETED. THE LD. CIT(A) RE GARDING JEWELLERY OF RS.22 LAKHS GOT CLEANED FROM M/S RAM JEWELLERY PALACE HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A BILL WHICH ESTABLISH ED ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D GOT SOME OLD JEWELLERY CLEANED FROM M/S RAM JEWELLERY PALACE. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM THAT NO AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY WAS PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR OF MARRIAGE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 7 CONTENTIONS OF THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN SOME NEW JEWELLERY IN MARRIAGE IN ADDITION TO OLD JEWELLERY WHICH GOT CLEANED FROM M/S RAM JEWELLERY PLACE. THEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT INSTRUCTION REFERRED TO ABOVE, AND REPORT OF THE A.O. THE LD. CIT(A) DEEMED IT FIT TO ESTIMATE THE VALUE OF GOLD GIVEN OUT OF OLD JEWELLERY AT RS.15 LAKHS , THE SOURCE TO THIS EXTENT WAS FOUND EXPLAINED AND THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT DELETED. THE REMAINING ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 CHALLENGING THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THESE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RESTRI CTED HIS ARGUMENTS TO THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.15,36,500/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.32,36,500/ - . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE OTHER HAND LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REMAINING ADDITION IS FULLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE FIR AT PAGE 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS LEDGED BY SMT.CHETNA AGGARWAL, DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WHATEV ER FIGURE GIVEN BY HER DAUGHTER ON MARRIAGE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY FIR O N ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 8 THE MATTER IN ISSUE, THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD NOT HAVE RELIED UPON THE CONTENTS OF THE FIR L ODGED BY DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE FIR IS LIKE A STATEMENT U/S 161 OF THE CRPC MADE TO THE POLICE FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE CRIME COMMITTED BY OTHERS. UNLESS THE CONTENTS OF THE FIR O R THE STATEMENT MADE TO POLICE ARE PROVED BEFORE THE COURT OF LAW, THESE ARE NO T ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AND COULD NOT FASTEN THE LIABILITY UPON THE MAKER OF FIR OR OTHERS , THEREFORE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE INCURRED RS.55 LAKHS IN THE MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER. THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED WAS RS.46,05,000/ - , THEREFORE, THIS FIGURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IF THE A.O. WANTED TO DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, HE SHO ULD BRING SOME RELEVANT AND COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR ESTIMATING THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE . I ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING MAR RIAGE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR RS.46,05,000/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE S WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND HER DAUGHTER FOR RS.11 LAKHS AND 8 LAKHS BUT IT WAS TAKEN AT LESSER AMOUNT WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY JUSTIFICATION. THEREFORE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE DISBELIEVED. THE OTHER MAJOR ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE ESTIMATE MADE FOR JEWELLERY GIVEN IN THE MARRIAGE. THE ASSESSEE ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 9 EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INHERITED GOL D AND DIAMOND NECKLACE THROUGH WILL FROM GRANDMOTHER OF THE BRIDE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE, HER DAUGHTER AND HUSBAND POSSESSED GOLD JEWELLERY WHICH ACCORDING TO THE CBDT INSTR UCTION NO. 1916 - 1994, DATED 11 TH MAY, 1994 WERE FOUND TO BE PARTLY EXPLAINED, CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE JEWELLERY POSSESSED BY THE FEMALE TRADITIONALLY. THEREFORE THE A.O. SHOULD NOT HAVE DISBELIEVED ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION. FURTHER ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE JEWELLERY WAS OLD AND NO NEW JEWELLERY HAS BEEN PURCHASED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT NO ACTUAL AMOUNT WAS SPENT FOR PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. THE EXPLANATION IS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. WAS CALLED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CERTIFICATE OF JEWELLER , COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK . THE JEWELLER ALSO IN HI S STATEMENT BEFORE THE A.O. CONFIRMED POLISHING AND CLEANING OLD JEWELLERY FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN TOTO. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ACCEPTED BY THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW IN PRINCIPLE BECAUSE THE A.O. DID NOT DISBELIEVE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. CIT(A) ALSO GAVE BENEFIT FOR OLD JEWELLERY POSSESSED BY FAMILY MEMBERS. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW IF THE ASSESSEE HAS P URCHASED NEW JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE LD. CIT(A) T O GIVE ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 10 BENEFIT TO ASSESSEE ONLY FOR RS.15 LAKHS OUT OF OLD JEWELLERY ACCUMULATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) MERELY IN PRESUMPTION HAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN SOME NEW JEWELLERY IN THE MARRIAGE BESIDES THE JEWELLERY CLEANED FROM M/S RAM JEWELLERY PLACE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOLLOWED THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1916 - 1994, DATED 11 TH MAY, 1994 FOR GIVING PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE FACTS ABOVE CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS POSSESSED OLD JEWELLERY WITHIN THE LIMITS PRESCRIBED AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPORTED BY CERTIFICATE OF JEWELLER AND STATEMENT MADE BY J EWELLER BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE ENTIRE BENEFIT FOR POSSESSING OLD JEWELLERY FOR A SUM OF RS. 22 LAKHS. THUS CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AU THORITIES BELOW TO MAKE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS.15,36,500/ - OUT OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ROKA CEREMONY BECAUSE IT WAS PERFORMED IN THE PRECEDING A.Y. CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.15,36,500/ - . IN THE RESULT THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT ARE ALLOWED. ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 11 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND AUGUST,2017. SD/ - (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : THE 22 ND AUGUST, 2017 *GMV COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. ITA 1691/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2004 - 05 SMT. USHA GUPTA VS. ITO, WARD 1(2) 12 SL.NO. PARTICULARS DATE INITIALS 1. DATE OF DICTATION OF DRAFT ORDER 18.8. 201 7 SR. P.S. 2. DATE OF DRAFT ORDER PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHOR 2 1 .0 8 .201 7 SR. P.S. 3. DATE OF DRAFT ORDER APPROVED BY MEMBER AND SENT TO OTHER MEMBER 22.08.2017 J.M. 4. DRAFT ORDER APPROVED BY OTHER MEMBER A.M. 5. APPROVED DRAFT ORDER RECEIVED ON SR. P.S. 6. ORDER KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 22.8.2017 SR. P.S. 8. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER