The Income-tax Officer, Abohar V. Sh. Vijay Kumar Munjal, Fazilka

ITA 650/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 65020914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K ANAND
• Keywords: Gift; Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: BDHPK7887E INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. VIJAY KUMAR MUNJAL, WARD-II(4), ABOHAR C/O- M/S MUNJAL SERVICE STATION, FEROZEPUR ROAD, FAZILKA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.K. ANAND, CA DATE OF HEARING: 13.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.02.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.08.2013 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BA THINDA, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA, HAS ERRED IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,96,988/- ( RS. 62,488/- + RS. 1,7 4,500/- + RS. 2,60,000/-) ON THE GROUND THAT THE CERTAIN PROBLEMS CROPPED UP BETWEEN HER AND HER-IN-LAWS AND IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AND TO MAKE THE LIFE OF HIS DAUGHTER COMFORTABLE, THE A MOUNTS RECEIVED ON MATURITY OF FDR AND SALE PROCEEDS OF CAR AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS TOTALING RS. 4,96,588/- WERE SPENT TO MEET TH E GREEDY DEMANDS OF THE IN-LAWS OF HIS DAUGHTER. IT IS A MAT TER OF COMMON 2 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 KNOWLEDGE THAT IN HINDU FAMILIES SHAGUN AND GIFTS ARE GIVEN BY THE PARENTS TO THEIR DAUGHTER ON VARIOUS FESTIVALS AND OCCASIONS EVEN AFTER THE MARRIAGE AND WHERE A SUIT AGAINST DO WRY SEEKERS LODGED IN THE COURT OF LAW, THE AMOUNT SPENT IN CON NECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE UPTO THE DATE OF FILING OF SUIT ARE NORMAL LY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. II. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA HAS ERRED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,41,600/- ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT SO FAR AS T HE WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE CONCERNED. AS PER THE APPELLANT, THE PRICE OF IMPUGNED JEWELLERY GIVEN IN DOWRY WAS RS. 7 LAKHS AT THE TIME OF WHEN THE DOWRY SUIT WAS FILE D BEFORE THE COURT WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED THE R ATE OF JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTER. III. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA HAS ERRED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/- BY RELYING UPON THE JUDG MENT 26 ITR 736 (SC), 26 ITR 775 (SC) THAT THE VARIOUS HON'BLE COURTS HAVE BEEN HELD THAT MAKING OF ADDITION ON GUESS WORK, SU RMISE AND CONJECTURES BY THE A.O. IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND AGA INST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IV. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS F INALLY HEARD. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.0 9.2008 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 96,000/-, WHICH WAS PROCESSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). LATER A NOTICE DATED 22.05.2009 UNDER SECTION 148 O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 23.05.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED A WRITTEN REPLY ON 27.07.2009 STATING THEREIN THAT THE RETURN ALREADY FILED BY HIM MAY BE TREATED AS INCOME TAX RETURN FILED IN RESPON SE TO NOTICE UNDER 3 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP BY ISSUING A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE ALONGW ITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 06.08.2009 FIXING THE CASE FOR 13.08.2009. AFTER THAT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED SO MANY TIMES AND AGAIN NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) & 143(2) DATED 01.11.2010 WERE ISSUE D FOR 16.11.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM AND AS SESSEE FILED THE SAME, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE SOME ADDITIONS, AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,91,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN-EXPLAINED EXPENSES INCURRED ON MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTE R AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 UNDER SECTION 143 (3)/148 OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 , THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.08.2013, PARTLY ALLOWE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.08.2013. 4 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON THE CONTRARY, LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CI T(A), BATHINDA. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE REVENUE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND AS PER THE ASSESSEES STAT EMENT, LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA, HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,96,988/ - (RS. 62,488/- + RS. 1,74,500/- + 2,60,000/-) ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN PROBLEMS CROPPED UP BETWEEN THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER IN-LAW S AND IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AND TO MAKE THE LIFE OF HIS DAUG HTER COMFORTABLE, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON MATURITY OF FDR AND SALE PROCEED S OF CAR AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS TOTALING RS. 4,96,588/- WERE SPE NT TO MEET THE GREEDY DEMANDS OF THE IN-LAWS OF HIS DAUGHTER. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN HINDU FAMILIES SHAGUNS AND GIFTS ARE GIVEN BY THE PARENTS TO THEIR DAUGHTER ON VARIOUS FESTIVALS AND OCCASIONS EVEN AFTER THE MARRIAGE AND WHERE A SUIT AGAINST DOWRY SEEKERS LOD GED IN THE COURT OF LAW, THE AMOUNT SPENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIA GE UPTO THE DATE OF FILING OF SUIT ARE NORMALLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N. 6. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS GIV EN BY THE LEARNED FIRST 5 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1, WHICH THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GIVEN IN PAGE NO. 5 AND 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE SA ME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,96,988 /- (RS. 62,488/- + RS. 1,74,500/- + RS. 2,60,000/-) BY HOLDING THAT THE AM OUNTS SPENT AFTER THE DATE OF MARRIAGE OUT OF MATURITY OF FDR AND SALE PR OCEEDINGS OF CAR AND AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS HAVING BEEN SPENT ON MARRIAGE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT ON MATURITY OF FDR, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 62,4 88/- WAS RECEIVED ON 06.03.2008, WHILE ON SALE OF CAR NO. PB 15C 2757 AN D AGRICULTURAL LANDS, AMOUNTS OF RS. 1,74,500/- ON 01-11-2007 AND RS. 2,6 0,000/- N 03.03.2008 RESPECTIVELY WERE RECEIVED AND ALL THESE AMOUNTS WERE SPENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. HO WEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT IT FOR THE REASON THAT THE MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE ON 09.02.2007 WHILE THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE AFTER THE DATE OF MARRIAGE AND THUS COULD NOT BE TREATED TO HAVE B EEN SPENT ON THE MARRIAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,96,988/- (RS. 62,488/- + RS. 1,74,500/- + RS. 2,60,000/-) IN APPEAL BEFORE ME, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT AFTER THE MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER, CERTAIN PROBLEMS CROPPED UP BETWEEN HER AND HER IN-LAWS AND IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE AND TO MAKE THE LIFE OF HIS DAUGHTER COMFORTABLE, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED ON MATUR ITY OF FDR AND SALE PROCEEDS OF CAR AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS TOTAL ING RS. 4,96,988/- WERE SPENT TO MEET THE GREEDY DEMANDS OF THE IN-LAWS OF HIS DAUGHTER. THAT DESPITE BEST EFFORTS, THE DISPUTE COULD NOT BE RESO LVED AMICABLY AND A SUIT AGAINST THE IN-LAWS OF HIS DAUGHTER FOR SEEKING DOW RY WAS LODGED FOR CLAIM OF RS. 25 LACS WHICH HAD BEEN SPENT IN CONNEC TION WITH THE MARRIAGE. HOWEVER, THE A.O. CONSIDERED THE AMOUNTS SPENT UPTO THE DATE OF MARRIAGE AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS SPENT AFTER T HE DATE OF MARRIAGE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN SPENT AT THE TI ME OF MARRIAGE. IT HAS 6 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 VEHEMENTLY BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED A/R OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,96,988/- MADE BY THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND MAY BE DELETED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LEARNED A/R O F THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT IN HINDU FAMILIES , SHAGUNS AND GIFTS ARE GIVEN BY THE PARENTS TO THEIR DAUGHTER ON VARIOUS FESTIVALS AND OCCASIONS EVEN AFTER THE MARRIAGE. THE A.O. HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT BUT HE HA S SIMPLY CONSIDERED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED UPTO THE DATE OF MARRIAGE, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. WHERE A SUIT AGAINST A DOWRY SEEKER IS LODGED IN TH E COURT OF LAW, THE AMOUNTS SPENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARRIAGE UPTO THE DATE OF FILING OF SUIT ARE NORMALLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THUS, T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AT RS. 4,96,988/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SOURCE FROM WHERE THE E XPENDITURE WAS MET HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT SATISFACTORILY BY ADDUCING POSITIVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 7. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N IN DISPUTE BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SOURCE OF EXP ENDITURE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNTS SPENT IN CONNECTION WI TH THE MARRIAGE UPTO THE DATE OF FILING OF THE SUIT ARE NORMALLY TAKEN I NTO CONSIDERATION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE IS SUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND REJECT THE S AME. 7 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 8. AS REGARDS TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3, 41,600/- ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESS EE AND THE DEPARTMENT SO FAR AS THE WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE CONCERNED, THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS THE FIN DINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE INVO LVED IN GROUND NO. 2 AT PAGE NO. 9, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN GROUND NO. 6 OF APPEAL, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY AT RS. 3 ,58,400/- AS AGAINST RS. 7,00,000/- MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER BEF ORE THE HON'BLE CIVIL COURT IN THE DOWRY CASE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED BEFORE THE A.O. THAT HE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LANDS ON 02.05.2001 F OR RS. 7,63,000/- AND SUCH SALE PROCEEDS WERE UTILIZED IN THE PURCHASE OF JEWELLERY. THAT OUT OF THE SAID JEWELLERY, JEWELLERY WEIGHING 384.900 WAS GOT RE-MOULDED FROM M/S POKHAR DASS LEKH RAJ, SWARANKAR, FAZILKA AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTER AND A BILL DATED 15.01.2007 WAS ALSO ISSUED BY THE SAID GOLD-SMITH. THE A.O., HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY WEIGHING 385.040 GMS. AT RS. 7,00,000/- BUT APPLIED A RATE OF RS. 9300/- PER 10 GMS. AS WAS PREVAILING DURING THE YEAR 2006 -07 AND WORKED OUT ITS VALUE AT RS. 3,58,400/- AND THE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,41,600/- WAS MADE. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME, IT HAS B EEN CONTENDED THAT THE WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY I.E. 385.040 GMS. GIVE N BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS DAUGHTER AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE HAS NOT BEEN IN DI SPUTED BY THE A.O. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THAT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CIVIL COURT , THE ASSESSEES DAUGHTER HAD STATED ON 13.12.2008 THAT HER PARENTS HAD GIVEN HER GOLD JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 7 LACS AND THIS AMOUNT WAS CALC ULATED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE RATE PREVAILING AT THAT TIME WHI LE THE A.O. APPLIED THE RATE OF RS. 9300/- PER 10 GMS. WHICH WAS PREVAILING DURING THE YEAR 2006-07. IT HAS THUS VEHEMENTLY BEEN CONTENDED THAT IN SUCH A SITUATE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS NOT IN ORDER AND MAY BE DELETED. 8 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS FOUND THAT IN FA CT, THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT SO FAR AS THE WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IS CONCERNE D. AS PER THE APPELLANT, THE PRICE OF IMPUGNED JEWELLERY GIVEN IN DOWRY WAS RS. 7 LACS AT THE TIME OF WHEN DOWRY SUIT WAS FILED BEFORE THE COURT WHILE THE A.O. HAS APPLIED THE RATE OF JEWELLERY AT THE TIME OF MA RRIAGE OF ASSESSEES DAUGHTER. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A PPARENTLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADDITI ON COULD BE MADE BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,41,600/ - IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 3,41,600/- BY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESS EE AND THE DEPARTMENT SO FAR AS THE WEIGHT OF JEWELLERY GIVEN AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE OF APPARENTLY LEAD TO THE CONFUSION THAT UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND REJECT THE SAME. 10. AS REGARDS TO THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,50,000/- BY RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 26 ITR 736 (S C), 26 ITR 775 9 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 (SC), THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 3, WHICH IS AT PAGE NOS. 9 AND 10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN GROUND NO. 7 OF APPEAL , IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VALUE OF DOMESTIC ARTICLES AND CAS H ETC. AT RS. 1,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 6 LACS GIVEN IN DOWRY BY THE ASSESSE E IN HIS DAUGHTERS MARRIAGE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER RITUALS AND CUSTOMS OF HINDUS, ITEMS OF HOUSE-HOLD GOODS ARE PURCHASED AND PRESERVED FROM TIME TO TIME SO THAT THEY MAY FORM PART OF DOWRY AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE OF THEIR DAUGHTER. IN THE SUIT AGAINST HER IN-LAWS FOR SEEKING DOWRY, THE ASSESSEE S DAUGHTER STATED BEFORE THE COURT THAT HOUSE-HOLD GOODS WORTH RS. 6 LACS WERE GIVEN BY HER PARENTS. THE A.O. IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MENTI ONED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN ADDUCE D AND HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT SUCH GOODS COULD BE WORTH RS. 1,50,000/- AND THUS THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,50,000/- WAS TREATED BY HIM AS UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. IN APPEAL BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED A/R OF THE APPE LLANT STATED THAT SINCE THE HOUSE-HOLD GOODS WERE BEING PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE OUT OF HER ISTRIDHAN FOR THE LAST ABOUT 15 YEARS OR SO, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THUS T HE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WITH THE A.O. ALSO TO REBUT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN PERUSED AND CONSIDERE D. THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT IT IS CU STOMARY TO PREPARE AND PRESERVE HOUSE-HOLD GOODS FOR GIVING THEM IN DOWRY. HE ACCORDINGLY PRESUMED THAT THE VALUE OF SUCH GOODS GIVEN IN DOWR Y COULD BE RS. 10 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 1,50,000/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,50,000/- WAS TREATED BY HIM AS UN-EXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. THE VARIOUS HON'BLE CO URTS HAVE HELD THAT MAKING OF ADDITION ON GUESS WORK, SURMISED AND CONJ ECTURES BY THE A.O. IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF L AW. AN ASSESSMENT BASED ON MERE CONJECTURE, SURMISE OR SUSPICION OR IRRELEV ANT AND INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL IS INVALID AND UN-SUSTAINABLE IN LAW 26 ITR 736 (SC), 26 ITR 775 (SC). IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE SUSTA INED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 11. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 4,50,000/- BY RELYING ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, REPORTED IN 26 ITR 736 (SC), 26 ITR 775 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AN ASSESSMENT BASED ON MERE CONJECTURE, SURMISE OR SUSPICION ARE IRRELEVANT AND INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL IS INVALID AND U N-SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND REJECT THE SAME. 12. WITH THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONE D ORDER ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WHICH REQUIRES NO IN TERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16. 08.2013 PASSED BY 11 I.T.A. NO. 650 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 LEARNED CIT(A), BATHINDA, ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. VIJAY KUMAR MUNJAL, C/O- M/S MUN JAL SERVICE STATION, FEROZEPUR ROAD, FAZILKA 2. ITO, WARD-II(4), ABOHAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.