RAJKUMAR MEENA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 251/JPR/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Raj Kumar Meena against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC/CIT(A)), which confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,48,900/- to his income for the assessment year 2015-16. This amount was part of the expenses incurred on his daughter's marriage, which the Assessing Officer had initially treated as unexplained under section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal examined the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including bank statements and a cash book, and found that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the funds used for the marriage expenses, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132385 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Salary income; Source of fund; Assessment record; Retraction
• Section: 131; 148; 69C; 69A

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 Raj Kumar Meena C-96, JP Colony tonk Phatak, Jaipur. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABMPM8936G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Monisha Chaudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 14/03/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 20/03/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC/CIT(A)”], dated 25.04.2022 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,48,900/- (being part of expenses incurred on marriage of daughter of assessee) made by ld.AO ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 2 u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily by alleging the same as unexplained. 1.1 That, Id.CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,48,900/- by grossly ignoring the submission of assessee that some cash was available with assessee out of savings even prior to the date of engagement (credit of which was not given by Id.AO). 1.2 That, Id.CIT(A) has further erred in action of Id.AO in considering the cash withdrawals from bank only from date of engagement (18.03.2014) and till the date of marriage (07.05.2014). Appellant prays that as a general practice, some of the payments are made in advance, while remaining payment are always made even after the event, therefore cash withdrawal prior to engagement and even after the date of marriage deserves to be considered as utilized in payment /clearing the dues of marriage expenses and thus to be treated as explained. 2. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Grade –A Officer with Rajasthan State Government and during the year under consideration assessee was having income from salary. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of information received from DIT (Inv.)-II, Jaipur regarding marriage expenses incurred on daughter engagement of Rs. 5.5 lacs and marriage Rs. 81.50 lacs. The return filed declaring total income of Rs. 12,83,340/- excluding deduction under ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 3 chapter VI of Rs. 1,50,060/- from salary head. The source of expenses were explained and cash book submitted during the course of assessment proceedings before the ld. AO. The ld. AO considered and accepted the submission made during the course of proceedings and decided total expenditure on marriage was Rs. 27,82,500/- only, as claimed by the assessee in his statement during the assessment proceedings. No additional fact or evidences was recorded by the ld. AO. The ld. AO ignored opening balance of cash as per cash book submitted and cash withdrawn from the bank after the date of marriage, without recognizing the fact that substantial payments for marriage expenses are normally made after marriage date i.e. after event date. The ld. AO failed to take evidence into consideration while making addition. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of ld. AO without even giving any reason for confirming the addition. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), present appeal has been filed. 4. The ld. AO observed that the assessee incurred marriage expenses out of his income sources only Rs. 13,51,100/-. Thereafter, the difference of Rs. 7,48,900/- is added to the income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act treating the same as unexplained expenditure. The ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 4 penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act also initiated for concealed the particular of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. With the above remarks, total income of the assessee is computed as under:- Total income shown by the assessee in ITR Rs. 12,83,340/- Addl:- Unexplained expenditure u/s 69C Rs. 7,48,900/- Total taxable income Rs. 20,32,240/- 5. In first appeal the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “ 5.1.1 I have considered the submission of the assesse and given a careful thought. The solitary issue involved in impugned case is regarding expenses related to assessee's daughter, which remained unexplained to the tune of Rs.7,48,900/- and added back to total income in terms of section 69C of IT Act, Although, the assessee vide his submission has denied to have incurred expenses more than the amount withdrawn from his bank account No.51052254274 maintained with SBBJ Tilak Marg. Jaipur, Account No.51089008633 with SBI, Secretariate, Jaipur and Account No. 7611403527 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jaipur and some monetary help from his relatives. However, while recording the statement of the assessee on oath on 27.11.2017, in Question No.4 onwards, had duly admitted that the total expenses incurred on occasion of his daughter's marriage was at Rs. 27,82,500/-, which is duly incorporated in the assessment order in para 10 on page 6 and 7 of the order. Thereafter, no retraction of the statement was ever filed by the assesse denying such claim. A careful perusal of his answer to question no. 4, the assesse has bifurcated the entire expenses head wise and aggregated it to at Rs.27,82,500/- ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 5 Hence, there is no ambiguity in the order of AO so far as quantum of total expenditure is concemed. During the appeal proceeding, the assesse has not brought on record any cogent material or evidence to negate the claim of the AO as the quantification of the expenditure by the AO is entirely based on the admission of the assesse, which was never retracted. Therefore, the argument of the assessee has no base, hence rejected. 5.1.2 Further, while quantifying the unexplained expenditure, the AO has duly taken into consideration, the cash withdrawal from assessee's three bank account as well as some contribution made by the relatives of the assesse, which is duly incorporated in para 15 on page 17 and 18 of the assessment order. Therefore, considering entire facts of the case, evidence brought on record by the AO as well as by the assessee. I find no infirmity in the AO’s order, accordingly, addition made of Rs. 7,48,900/- in terms of section 69C of IT Act is hereby confirmed. As a result, ground Nos. 1 and 2 are dismissed.” 6. Being aggrieved by the ld. CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before us. Before us the ld. AR for the assessee submitted a detailed written submissions which are as under:- “ Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Grade-A Officer with Rajasthan State Government and during the year under consideration assessee was having Income from Salary. Assessment for the year under consideration was reopened on the basis of information received from the DIT (Inv.) – II, Jaipur, wherein it was stated that assessee has incurred expense of Rs. 81,50,000/- at the time of his daughter’s engagement and marriage and out of aforesaid expenditure, a sum of Rs. 76,33,249/- remained unexplained. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred as “The Act”) assessee filed the return of income on 03.01.2017 declaring total income at Rs. 12,83,340/-(APB 1-4). During the course of assessment proceedings based on the evidences produced and case laws relied upon ld. AO accepted the contention of assessee that actual expense incurred on daughter’s marriage was of Rs. 27,82,500/- only and not of Rs. 81,50,000/- which is also evident from the page 18 of the Assessment order and also accepted ld. CIT(A). Regarding the source of Rs. 27,82,500/- it was explained that a sum of Rs. 6,82,500/- were ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 6 contributed by assessee’ sclose relatives including his father, uncle, father in law and wife and balance amount of Rs. 21.00 lcas was out of bank withdrawals of Rs. 22,84,900/- made by assessee on various dates from his bank accounts before and after the wedding. However, ld.AO has accepted the source to the extent of Rs. 20,33,600/- as explained which include Rs. 6,82,500/- incurred by relatives and Rs. 13,51,100/- withdrawn from bank upto the date of marriage as utilised towards the marriage expenses and balance expenses of Rs. 7,48,900/- was treated as unexplained expenditure by ignoring the fact the certain payments were made even after the wedding. Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of ld. AO without even giving any reason for confirming the addition. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), present appeal has been filed. Ground-wise submission is made as under: Ground of Appeal No.1 to 1.2: Under these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,48,900/- made by ld. AO by alleging the part of expense incurred during the marriage function of his daughter as unexplained u/s 69C of the Act. Brief facts as submitted above, are that the assessee has incurred total expenditure of Rs. 27,82,500/- on the marriage of his daughter, out of which Rs. 6,85,500/- were incurred by close relatives of the assessee and balance Rs. 21,00,000/- were meet out from the bank withdrawals made out of salary savings. Ld. AO has accepted the expenses incurred by close relatives and balance amount of Rs. 21.00 lacs as claimed by assessee being incurred out of his savings, has accepted Rs. 13,51,100/- which were withdrawn upto 07.05.2014 i.e. upto the date of marriage and treated the balance amount of Rs. 7,48,900/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C by not accepting the claim of the assessee that these payments were made after the marriage.It is customary in the Indian society that in a marriage there are certain expense for which payments have been made in advance and remaining expenses have been paid after the marriage is over, which is also happened in the case of assessee and same is evident from bank statements (APB 92-106) as well as cash book (APB 89-91) which is furnished before the ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings and also before the ld. CIT(A) during the course of first appellate proceedings. Ld.AO has not ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 7 doubted the withdrawals made by the assessee from his bank account nor the source thereof and made the addition solely for the reason that the withdrawals were made after the marriage. With regard to the source of fund it is reiterated that assessee being a Rajasthan State Government Grade “A” Employee has a sufficient salary & savings to meet out the marriage expenditure. Part of expenditure to the extent of Rs. 6,82,500/- were incurred out of contributions received from senior family members of assessee, which is also accepted by the ld. AO as well as ld. CIT(A) and balance expenditure of Rs. 21,00,000/- were incurred by assessee out of his own sources, out of which some expenditures were incurred on credit basis and payments were made after marriage as per the availability of funds with the assessee. It is general practice in occasion like marriage functions wherein payments are made in instalments much after the date of marriage. It is further submitted during the course of assessment assessee has submitted the details of head wise expenses incurred which is also reproduced at pages 6 & 7 of the assessment order. From the perusal of the nature of expenses like food items, making charges, catering and other miscellaneous expenses it is submitted that exact amount of expenditure could be ascertained only when the marriage is solemnized and thus the full and final settlement could be possible only after the event and therefore, it is wrong to say that the withdrawals made after the marriage were not utilized towards for clearing the marriage dues. As submitted above, assessee in support of his claim also furnished the detailed cash book as well as Bank statements before the ld. AO as well as before the ld. CIT(A) (APB 89-106) according to which it is evident that assessee had made cash withdrawals of Rs. 22,84,900/- from March 2014 to August 2014 from his bank accounts to meet out expenses the incurred on the occasion of his daughter’s marriage. Summary of such withdrawals as submitted before the ld.(A) (APB 110) is tabulated as under: Particulars Amount Total withdrawal(APB 89-91) 22,84,900/- Add: Cash in Hand as on 1.3.2014 (APB 89) 2,82,896/- Total cash Available 25,67,796/- ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 8 From the perusal of above, it is evident that assessee has cash of Rs. 25,67,796/- which was withdrawn on various dates from his bank accounts maintained in the capacity of individual as well as jointly with his wife and after incorporating the opening cash available with assessee out of which a sum of Rs. 21.00 were utilised for meeting out the marriage expenses. Neither the ld. AO nor ld. CIT(A) has doubted the availability of funds in the bank accounts nor doubted the withdrawals made there from however, without stating any single reason as why the withdrawals made after the marriage be not considered as utilised for making payment of due expenses has made the addition in arbitrary manner by considering the cash withdrawal made between the period from 18.03.2014 to 07.05.2014 only as explained expenditure and ignoring the balance cash withdrawals as source of expenditure for marriage function i.e. after 07.05.2014. In the circumstances it is humbly submitted that ld. CIT(A) had acted on whims and fancies by confirming the action of ld. AO solely on the presumption that no payments can be done after the marriage, which is not only unfair but also impractical. Therefore it is humbly prayed to delete the addition of Rs. 7,48,900/- which remained explained expenditure being made out of cash withdrawals from the assessee’s various bank accounts.” 7. All grounds of appeal are interconnected. We note that the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings has recorded all the submissions made by the ld. AR for the assessee. The relevant portion in the AO’s order at page 18 which is reproduced as under:- “ considering all submissions and facts no doubt that marriage has happened and expenses were incurred as per assessee and his daughter’s affidavit. Thus, as assessee has himself has stated in his statement that maximum expenses of ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 9 Rs. 27,82,500/- have been incurred in his daughter’s marriage and the assessee has taken a plea that the incurred only Rs. 21,00,000/- on his daughter’s marriage.” 8. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and submitted that the expenses given by the ld. AR for the assessee during the assessment proceedings are not genuine and further, the ld. DR pointed that in FIR No. 162/2015 and case No. 42/2017 was lodged gainst Shri Anil Meena & Others, on the basis of which investigation against Shri Raj Kumar Meena was started. The FIR was lodged based on personal assumption of expenses, made during the marriage and engagement. 9. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. All grounds are interconnected pertaining to cash deposit on observing the facts of the case, we noted that the assessee is Grade-A Officer with Rajasthan State Government and during the year under consideration, assessee was having Income from Salary. We note that the case was reopened by the ld. AO, the main issue on the case was ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 10 reopened by the ld. AO was that the assessee incurred expenses of Rs. 81,50,000/- at the time of his daughter’s engagement and marriage and out of the aforesaid expenditure, a sum of Rs. 76,33,249/- remained unexplained. In response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee has filed his return of income along with ITR form u/s 148 of the Act declaring total income of Rs. 12,83,340/- which has been filed in paper book at page 1 to 4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the ld. AO himself accepted the written submission, evidences produced and the case laws in support of the contention of the assessee that the actual expenses incurred by the assessee on daughter’s marriage if Rs. 27,82,500/- only and not of Rs. 81,50,000/- this fact evident from page 18 of the assessment order. The expenses on marriage to the extent of Rs. 1,21,500/- contributed by his father Shri Rangala Meena and Rs. 1,00,000/- contributed by his uncle Shri Ram Kumar Meena and Rs. 2,50,000/- contributed by his father in-law Shri Banshidhar Meena and Jewellery items worthy Rs. 2,11,000/- contributed by assessee’s wife Smt. Santra Devi Meena was considered by the ld. AO as their confirmation have been filed and the ld. AO has accepted the expenses incurred but the source of income upto marriage only. From the assessment order, we noted that the AO has not disputed ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 11 the source of income of Rs. 6,82,500/- in the assessment order and the AO himself mentioned that the marriage expenses is for Rs. 21,00,000/- by the assessee. The assessee based on bank statement and cash book explained the course and further during the period i.e. 18.03.2014 to 07.05.20174, the assessee has made withdrawn of Rs. 13,51,100/- from the following banks:- S. No. Date Name of the bank Account No. Amount withdrawn 1. 26.03.14 SBBJ, Tilak Nagar, jaipur 510522254274 45000 2. 27.03.14 45000 3. 28.03.14 45000 4. 07.04.14 45000 5. 05.05.14 39900 6. 01.04.14 SBI, Secretariat, Jaipur 51089008633 1200 7. 02.04.14 30000 8. 03.04.14 30000 9. 07.04.14 30000 10. 14.04.14 40000 11. 05.04.14 200000 12. 31.03.14 Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jaipur 7611403527 200000 13. 16.04.14 300000 14. 29.04.14 300000 Total 1351100 ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 12 The ld. AO during the assessment proceedings accepted the source of cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 20,33,600/- as explained which include Rs. 6,82,500/- incurred by relatives and Rs. 13,51,100/- which has been withdrawn from bank upto the date of marriage as utilized towards the marriage expenses and the balance expenses of Rs. 7,48,900/- was treated as unexplained expenditure by ignoring the fact the certain payments were made even after the wedding. We noted that the ld. CIT(A) has without considering the submission of the assessee followed the AO’s findings and observations and failed to give an independent decision. Even during the appellate proceedings, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted written submission and documentary evidences were not considered appropriately. The ld. CIT(A) failed to note that summons were issued to the assessee u/s 131 of the Act by the ld. AO and statements of the assessee has been recorded and reply filed by the assessee against summons issued u/s 131 of the Act, has been part of the assessment record where it clearly mentioned that the expenses incurred during the marriage for his daughter is valid expenses where the payments were made after the marriage but unfortunately the ld. CIT(A) has not considered/discussed this aspect. ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 13 10. Taking into facts and circumstances of the present case the only issue before us is whether the payment of Rs. 7,48,900/- made can be treated as unexplained expenditure. We found from the records that neither the ld. AO or ld. CIT(A) doubted the source of subsequent payment made by the assessee and failed to consider bank statements as well as cash book which were furnished before him where the ld. AO has not doubted the withdrawal made by the assessee from his bank account nor the source, thereof made the addition of salary only the reason of withdrawal after the marriage. We noted that the assessee’s submission along with details of cash book as well as bank statement in paper book at page 89-106, where it is evident that the assessee has made cash withdrawal of Rs. 22,84,900/- from March 2014 to August 2014 from his bank accounts to meet out expenses incurred on the occasion of his daughter’s marriage. It is evident that the assessee had cash of Rs. 25,67,796/- which was withdrawn on various dates from his bank accounts maintained in his individual as well as jointly with his wife and after including balance available with the assessee out of which a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- were utilized for meeting out the marriage expenses. We noted that neither the ld. AO nor ld. CIT(A) has doubted the availability of funds in the bank accounts nor doubted the withdrawals made therefrom ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 14 however, without stating any single reason as why the withdrawals made after the marriage cannot consider as utilised for making payment of due expenses. Thus, the addition so made purely in arbitrary manner without considering the cash withdrawal made between the period from 18.03.2014 to 07.05.2014 for which source is explained. Moreover we have persuaded the cash book of Mr. Raj Kumar Meena for the period 01.03.2014 to 31.08.2014 it is evident where the cash withdrawals made by the assessee is explained as well total withdrawal of Rs. 22,84,900/- and the cash in hand on 01.03.2014 and which is Rs. 2,82,896/- where the total cash available was Rs. 25,67,796/- which is evident that the assessee has cash Rs. 25,67,796/- which was withdrawn on various dates from his bank account mentioned in the capacity of individual as well as jointly with his wife and after incorporating the opening cash available with assessee out of which a sum of Rs. 21 lacs were utilized for marriage expenses. 11. To support his arguments that the assessee has furnished the documentary evidence of cash book as well as bank statement before us from page 89 to 106. Finally the Bench noted that the assessee was discharged his burden of explaining the expenditure incurred and the source thereof and we do not have any hesitation to delete the addition of Rs. 7,48,900/- made by the lower authorities. ` In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 251/JPR/2022 Raj Kumar Meena vs. ITO 15 Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/03/2023. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 20/03/2023. *Santosh vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Raj Kumar Meena, Jaipur. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-4(4), Jaipur. 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 251/JPR/2022} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar