DWARKADHEESH BATRA, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 351/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5312 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SOGANICA
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12. SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, PROP. M/S. HANSRAJ & CO. B-7, NEW SABJI MANDI, ALWAR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AJNPB 1981 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI(CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08.10.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/10/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2015 OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 67 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R ON THE CONDONATION OF DELAY AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE REASONS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS THAT AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UN DER SECTION 154. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FILED TWO APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ONE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED 2 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND ANOTHER AGAINST UNDER SECT ION 154. THE LD. CIT (A) PASSED TWO ORDERS DATED 20.11.2015 AND 22.12.2015. IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE WHICH OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND, THEREFORE, DUE TO THIS CONFUSION, THE RE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH IS NEITHER WILLFUL NOR DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO THE BONAFIDE REASON. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PASSED TWO ORDERS AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.11.2015 WAS PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND THEREAFTER THE ANOTHER ORDER DAT ED 22.12.2015 WAS PASSED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE A CT. SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS WHICH WERE DECIDED BY TH E LD. CIT (A), THEREFORE, THE POSSIBILITY OF THE SAID CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. FURTHER WE FIND THAT FILING THE APPEAL BELATEDLY TH E ASSESSEE WOULD NOT ACHIEVE ANY ULTERIOR PURPOSE OR ANY GAIN. THEREFORE, HAVING RE GARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE REASONS EXPLAIN ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND BONAFIDE, THEN WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR DELAY OF 67 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 67 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : - 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 AND THEREAFTER MAKING AN AD DITION OF RS. 8,50,925/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE ACTI ON OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DELETING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 8 ,50,925/-. 3 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN NOT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- SURRENDERED BY THE APPELLA NT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDIT ION OF RS. 8,50,925/- MADE BY LD. AO. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GR ANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/-. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES : EXPENSES AMOUNT CLAIMED AMOUNT DISALLOWED RELIEF GRANTED BY CIT (A) CONFIRMED BY CIT (A) WAGES EXPENSES 73,341/ - 15,000/ - NIL 15,000/ - CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 18,325/ - 4,000/ - NIL 4,000/ - TRAVELLING EXPENSES 50,498/ - 11,000/ - NIL 11,000/ - BARDANA CHARGES 19,153/ - 4,000/ - NIL 4,000/ - TEA, FOOD AND BEVERAGES 42,323/ - 8,500/ - NIL 8,500/ - TELEPHONE & MOBILE EXPENSES 12,313/ - 2,500/ - NIL 2,500/ - PETROL AND DEPRECIATION ON HERO HONDA BIKE 43,525/ - 8,500/ - NIL 8,500/ - ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSE 15,505/ - 3,000/ - NIL 3,000/ - SALARY 1,33,000/ - 1,33,000/ - 83,000/ - 50,000/ - TOTAL 4,07,983/ - 1,89,500/ - 83,000/ - 1,06,500/ - THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTE D BY QUASHING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,06,500/-. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 75,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 87,000/- MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS. TH E ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAI NST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 75,000/-. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E LD. AO OF RS. 76,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH GIFTS RECEIVED ON TIKKA CEREMONY AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. 1,75,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH GIFT RECEIVED ON MARRIAGE CEREMONY. RELIEF MA Y PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,0 00/-. 6. THE ASSESSEE RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR AL TER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESS EE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS THIS GRO UND PARTICULARLY THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO . 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ARE INTER CONNECTED. 5. THE AO HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES IN RESPECT O F VARIOUS EXPENSES WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF T HE IT ACT ON 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2011 THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED AN INCOME OF RS. 3,00, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY AND DEFICIENCY FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR OTHER RECORDS. HOWEVER, THE AO WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCES OF VARIO US EXPENDITURES HAS NOT GIVEN THE CREDIT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- SUR RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OFFERED TO TAX. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAVING ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS BETTER THAN THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF CERTAIN EXPENSES ARE DISALLOWED BY THE AO, THE 5 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. CREDIT OF THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED AND OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ALLOWED AND SET OFF AGAINST THE SAID DISALLOWANCE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE INCOME OF RS. 3,00,000/- ONLY ON AC COUNT OF THE EARLIER YEAR SO THAT THE AO SHOULD NOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT OF EARLIER YEAR. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER DATED 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2011 WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- AND SUBMI TTED THAT THE SURRENDER WAS MADE WITH THE CONDITION THAT NO REOPENING OF ASSESS MENTS FOR THE PAST YEARS WOULD BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT. THUS IT IS CLEAR T HAT THE SURRENDER WAS MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF PAST YEARS AND NOT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.9,60,142/- AND OTHER RECEIP TS OF RS. 7,200/- AND DECLARED NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,74,183/- WHICH IS 18.13%. THE DETAILS OF THE COMPARATIVE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY T HE AO IN PARA 2 AS UNDER :- FU/KZKJ.K O 'K Z 'KQ} YKHK 'KQ} YKHK NJ 2011 - 12 1,74,183/ - DEH'KU IJ 18.13 IZFR'KR 2010 - 11 3,27,830/ - DEH'KU IJ 14.60 IZFR'KR 2009 - 10 61,235/ - FCH IJ 7.60 IZFR'KR THE AO HAS ALSO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3). THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE SAID ISSUE IN THE 6 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. PRESENT APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS ATTAINED THE FINALITY. ONCE THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT AND ALSO MADE A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ONLY OPTION WITH THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS WHETHER IT IS AVERAGE GP OF THE PA ST YEARS OR THE AVERAGE NET PROFIT OF THE PAST YEARS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AV ERAGE GP OR NP OF THE PAST YEARS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED OR ATTAINED FINALITY MAY BE A REASONABLE BASIS AND GOOD GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATION O F INCOME AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ADMITTEDLY, THE NET PROFIT DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS MUCH MORE THAN THE AVERAGE N ET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAST WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED B Y THE AO. THEREFORE, ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED BY THE AO, THE ESTIMA TION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE BASED ON SOME REASONABLE BASIS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE CRITERIA OF PAST NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT D ESPITE THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. HENCE, THE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND, THEREFORE, THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE WOULD BE MORE THAN THE ESTIMATED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, INSTEAD OF GOING INT O THE ISSUE OF GIVING THE CREDIT OF RS. 3,00,000/- AGAINST THE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES MA DE BY THE AO AS REFERRED IN GROUND NO. 3, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE B Y THE AO ARE NOT CALLED FOR WHEN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ESTIMATED AND THE COMPARATIVE NET PROFIT IS ADMITTEDLY MUCH BETTER THAN THE PAST HIST ORY OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. HENCE WE DELETE THE ADDI TION/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES TOTALING TO RS. 1 ,06,500/-. 7 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. GROUND NO. 4 IS REGARDING THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CO NSIDERED BY US IN THE CASE OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 439/JP/2016 VIDE EVEN DATED ORDER AS UNDER :- 14. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 83,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 2,70,993/-. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DISCOUNT IS CUSTOMARY IN THIS BUSINESS AND WAS GIVEN FOR PROMPT AND REGULAR PAYMENT FROM THE CUSTOMERS. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SOME OF THE CUSTOMERS AS WELL AS FROM THE ALWAR FRUIT & VEGETABLE MANDI UNION. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN IT IS A PREVAILING PRACTICE IN THIS TRADE , THEN THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE A SSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE DISC OUNT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATER IAL OR DOCUMENT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS OF THE PERSONS AND THE DATES REGARDING THE DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS. THUS IT IS AN EXCESSIVE CLAIM MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT AS WELL AS TH E DATES, HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HE HAS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS TRADE THE QUESTION OF ALLOWING DISCOUN T DOES NOT ARISE WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING ONLY COMMISSION INCOME. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH THE AO HAS MAD E AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 83,000/- OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF CASH DISCOUNT OF RS. 8 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. 2,70,993/-, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS W ORKING AS A COMMISSION AGENT AND FACILITATE THE TRANSACTIONS OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES BROUGHT BY THE ONE PARTY IS SOLD TO THE OTHER PARTY. THUS THE ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY PROVIDING A PLATFO RM FOR THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE BETWEEN TWO PARTI ES. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS EARNING COMMISSION INCOME AND NO INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE IS EITHER RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OR INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME, THEN SUCH A CLAIM OF CASH DISCOUN T CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EX CLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NATURE OF BUSINESS O F THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY TO FACILITATE THE PLATFORM FOR THE TRANSACTION S BETWEEN THE PARTIES THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING CERTAIN DUTIES AND RE SPONSIBILITIES OF ASSURING THE PAYMENT TO THE OWNER OF THE GOODS WHO HAS BROUGHT THE GOODS FOR SALE. ACCORDINGLY THE CASH DISCOUNT ALLO WED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CUSTOMERS HAS NO DIRECT CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE AO HAS MADE PART DISALLOWANCE, ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ON THIS ISSUE I N THE CONNECTED APPEAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. GROUND NO. 5 IS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 76,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH GIFT RECEIVED ON THE OCCASION OF ENGAGEMENT CE REMONY AND FURTHER RS. 1,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED ON MARRI AGE CEREMONY. 9. THE AO HAS MADE A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH GIFT RECEIVED ON ENGAGEMENT CEREMONY OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH GIFT CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED IN MARRIAGE CEREMONY. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THESE ADD ITIONS TO RS. 76,000/- OUT OF RS. 9 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. 1,76,000/- ON ACCOUNT THE GIFT RECEIVED IN ENGAGEME NT CEREMONY AND FURTHER THE ADDITION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,75,000/- OUT OF RS . 3,75,000/- IN RESPECT OF GIFT RECEIVED ON MARRIAGE CEREMONY. THUS THE LD. CIT (A ) HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF OF RS. 2,51,000/-. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 5,51,000/- WHICH INCLUDES CAS H DEPOSIT IN THE BANK OF RS. 3,75,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF GIFT RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF TILAK CEREMONY AND MARRIAGE CEREMONY CAN BE CONSIDE RED AS A SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHEREAS THE AO HAS MADE T HE ADDITION OF BOTH THE AMOUNTS OF GIFT RECEIVED AS WELL AS THE DEPOSIT MAD E IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ONE ACCOUNT SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS SOURCE OF DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. HE HAS REFER RED TO THE DETAILS OF THE GIFT RECEIVED TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,26,000/- FROM HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AT THE TIME OF PRE-MARRIAGE AND MARRIAGE CEREMONY AND, THEREFOR E, TO THE EXTENT OF THE SAID MONEY THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BANK DEPOSIT WOULD NOT BE WARRANTED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO WITHDREW CERTAIN CASH FROM TH E BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,50,000/-. THUS THE SAID AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL FRO M THE BANK IS ALSO AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN THE MARR IAGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS ONLY SHOWN THE CASH GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSE SSEES CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS 10 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT ACCOUNT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN GIFT RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,01,000/- AT THE TIME OF TILAK CEREMONY AND FU RTHER GIFT RECEIPTS OF RS. 1,25,000/- ON RECEPTION CEREMONY POST MARRIAGE OF T HE ASSESSEE. THUS RS. 2,26,000/- WAS CLAIMED AS GIFT RECEIVED IN THE PRE- MARRIAGE AND POST MARRIAGE CEREMONIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE OF RS. 38,400/- AS WELL AS MARRIAGE EXP ENSES OF RS. 70,000/-. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 2,26,000/- CLAIMED AS GIFT AND FURTHER AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,75 ,000/- AS CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS THE TOTAL ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A O OF RS. 5,51,000/-. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF OF RS. 3,00,000/- AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,000/-. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE IS GIVEN IN PARA 11.3 TO 11.7 AS UNDER :- 11.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND FIND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,76,000 STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON TIKKA CERE MONY AND OF RS. 3,75,000, WHICH WERE STATED TO BE RECEIVED ON MARRI AGE HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THESE AMOUNTS WERE FOUND TO HAVE BE EN DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. AO HAS H ELD THESE DEPOSITS TO BE UNEXPLAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE INFORM ATION REGARDING THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE DONORS GIVING THESE GIFTS IN CASH. 11.4. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THESE GIFTS WER E RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF TIKKA CEREMONY AND MARRIAGE CEREMONY OF THE APPELLANT FROM 11 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. DIFFERENT RELATIVES AND FAMILY FRIENDS. A LIST OF T HE NAMES ALONG WITH THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS HAS BEEN FIL ED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. A COPY OF THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN FILED IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT FURT HER STATED THAT SUCH GIFTS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX BY VIRTUE OF THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII) OF THE I.T. ACT. 11.5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON THI S ISSUE AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THAT APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 1,01,000 ON ACCOUNT OF TIKKA CEREMONY, CASH OF RS. 1,25,000 ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT ON CEREMONY AND FURTHER CASH OF RS. 3,75,000 ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE CEREMONY. THESE CASH BALANCE W ERE DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENT DATES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLAN T. AO HAS AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD GIVEN A FINDING THAT ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- CAN BE CONSIDERED AS HAVI NG BEEN RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THESE CEREMONIES AND BALANCE AMOUNT O F RS. 5,51,000 HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 11.6. NO DOUBT, CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CASH IS BEING REC EIVED IN THE INDIAN SOCIETY AT THE TIME OF DIFFERENT MARRIAGE CEREMONIE S BUT THE QUANTUM OF THE SAME WOULD DEPEND UPON THE STATUS OF THE FAM ILY. FURTHER, THESE CEREMONIES INVOLVE INCURRING OF HUGE EXPENDIT URE ON BOOKING OF VENUES, LIGHTING, CATERING, TRANSPORT, GIVING RETUR N GIFTS PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY, CLOTHES AND OTHER ITEMS ETC. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES ON THESE ITEMS HAVE ALSO TO BE COMPLETELY ACCOUNTED FO R. 11.7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT IT WOULD BE JUST AND FAIR TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS. 76,000 ON ACCO UNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF TIKKA CEREMONY OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,76,000 MADE BY THE AO AND TO RS. 1,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE CEREMONY OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDI TION OF RS. 3,75,000 MADE BY THE AO UNDER THIS HEAD. 12 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR. THUS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT A PART FROM RECEIVING THESE GIFTS, THERE IS INEVITABLE EXPENDITURE IN THE MARRIAGE WHI CH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE CLAIMING THESE GIFTS OF RS. 2,26,000 /-. IN ANY CASE, THE EXPENDITURE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 70,000/- IS COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC HAVING REGARD TO THE MINIMUM EXPENDITURE AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE CEREMON Y. HENCE WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE AMICABLY AND GIVI NG PROPER REFERENCE AND, THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/10/2 018. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 12/10/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- LATE SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALW AR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 2(3), ALWAR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 351/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 13 ITA NO. 351/JP/2016 SHRI DWARKADHEESH BATRA, ALWAR.