Balasaheb Bharamgouda Patil, Belgaum V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2209/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7750 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ULHAS KINI
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , . , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKAR A RAO, AM . / ITA NO.2209/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI BALASAHEB BHARAMGOUDA PATIL, 4112, PATSON HOUSE, P.B. ROAD, BELGAUM 590 003 KARNATAKA STATE PAN : ABUPP6059P . APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ULHAS KINI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ACHAL SHARMA, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.08.2017 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A), KOLHAPUR DATED 21-10-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THE DISPUTE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION O F RS.11 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCO UNT OF HIS SONS MARRIAGE. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.5 LAKHS ONLY A ND GAVE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME ASSESSEE, RAISED 5 GROUNDS WHERE THE CORE ISSUE RELATES TO THE CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITION TO RS. 5 LAKHS. ITA NO.2209/PUN/2014 SHRI BALASAHEB BHARAMGOUDA PATIL 2 3. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONE D THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO PRESUMABLY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 69C OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE LEGALLY. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE EVENT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS SON IS THE UNDISPUTED FACT, THE ESTIMATION OF EXPENSES QUANTIFYING THE SAME TO RS.11 LAKHS INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 69C IS NOT CORRECT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE PO SSESSION OF THE AO TO SUPPORT SUCH ESTIMATION. THEREFORE, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE PLEADED FOR DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION. RELYING ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,44,028/- WAS CLAIMED IN THE BOOKS AS MARRIAGE EXPENSES. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE WHOLE O F THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE COULD NOT BE EVIDENCED WITH THE THIRD PARTY VOUCHER S AND BILLS. CONSIDERING THE ABSENCE OF THE BILLS, AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE ESTIMATI ONS DETERMINING THE ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.11 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE THE DISCL OSED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS SON. 4. CIT(A) AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 3.5 O F HIS ORDER, REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.5 LAKHS. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE JUDG MENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BHAGVATI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 2 61 ITR 658 (CAL.). AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C AS THE ESTIM ATED EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS INCURRED REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SEC TION. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE MARRIAGE IN QUESTION RELATES TO SHRI TUSHAR PATIL, SON OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAILS FROM A HIGHER INCOME GROU P OF THE SOCIETY. THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE ON 19-06-2003. THE CLAIM OF EX PENDITURE OF RS.4,44,028/- IS ITA NO.2209/PUN/2014 SHRI BALASAHEB BHARAMGOUDA PATIL 3 EXTREMELY ON THE LOW SIDE CONSIDERING THE KIND OF M ARRIAGE PERFORMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING FATHER OF SHRI TUSHAR PATIL. 7. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE READ OUT THE CONTENTS OF PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE AO AND MENTIONED THAT TH E ASSESSEE NEEDS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE ON VARIOUS HEADS OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES N AMELY, INVITATION CARD EXPENSES, JEWELLERY PURCHASES, MARRIAGE CLOTHES PUR CHASES, TAILORING CHARGES, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, FOOD EXPENSES, ETC. THESE EXPENSES ARE INEVITABLE IN ANY MARRIAGE. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOMEBODY BORE THE ENTIRE EXPENSES OF THE MARRIAGE. CERTAINLY, THE EXPENSES OF MARRIAGE WERE BORNE BY THE PARENTS OF BRIDE GROOM AND BRIDE. THEREFORE, THE E XTENT OF EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DOES NOT CONST ITUTE REAL EXPENSES QUANTITATIVELY. THEREFORE, AS PER THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ESTIMATION RESORTED TO BY THE AO, BY QUANTIFYING THE ADDITIONA L EXPENSES OF RS.11 LAKHS IS FAIR AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED. FURTHER, REFERRING TO THE CLAIM OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT, NOWHERE IN THE ORDER OF THE AO, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO SECTION 69C, THEREFORE, RELEVANT ARGUMENTS BY THE A SSESSEES COUNSEL SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 8. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS LIMITED ISSUE OF CORRECTNESS OF QUANTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF HIS SON. WE PERUSED THE PAPERS FILED B EFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF PARA NOS. 3 TO 5 OF THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH CONTAIN THE REASONS FOR RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.5 LA KHS. IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER, WE FIND THE CIT(A) ERRONEOUSLY HELD THE AO WRONGLY INV OKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT THE POSITION ON FACTS. AO NEVER INVOKED ANY PARTICULAR SECTION WHILE MAKING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.11 LAK HS. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT ITA NO.2209/PUN/2014 SHRI BALASAHEB BHARAMGOUDA PATIL 4 THAT THE MARRIAGE DID TAKE PLACE ON 19-06-2003 AND THE EXPENSES OF MARRIAGE ARE BORNE BY BOTH THE PARENTS OF BRIDE GROOM AND BRIDE . IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE BRIDES FATHER BORE THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF THE BR IDE GROOM SIDE TOO. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF PARA NO.5 AND NOTICED THAT THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) ABOUT WHY ASSESSEES BOOK DOES NOT CONTA IN THE DETAILED EXPENDITURE ON VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE MAR RIAGE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ESTIMATIONS AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.5 LAKHS IS FAIR AND REASONABLE A ND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 09 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 09 TH AUGUST, 2017. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : THE APPELLANT; THE RESPONDENT; ( ) THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR / THE CIT , KOLHAPUR , , / DR A, ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE