Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Asstt. Cit vs H.M. Sathyanarayana Setty on 5 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2001)71TTJ(BANG)186
ORDER
Hari Om Maratha, J.M. This appeal relates to assessment year 1992-93. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26-9-1995. The assessee is a partner in M/s H.M. Sathyanarayana Setty & Sons Co. at Arsikers. The assessee had shown drawings of Rs. 30,000 towards marriage expenses of his daughter but the assessing officer was of the opinion that the status of the assessee was very high in the society. So, the assessee must have spent much more than Rs. 30,000 on the marriage of his daughter.
Consequently, learned assessing officer estimated the marriage expenses at Rs. 1,50,000 and thereby added the difference of Rs. 1,20,000 towards inadequate drawings.
2. We have heard rival contentions advanced by both the representatives and perused the record and evidence before us. Learned authorised representative has submitted that the assessee stays in joint family along with his three sons in an area which is almost rural and he has detailed various factors due to which the expenses incurred in the marriage of the daughter of the assessee was not very high. He has submitted that the marriage was conducted at Vysya Community Hall which is given free of rent to the member belonging to the Vysya community. He has also submitted that the marriage was very simple and without giving of any dowry, and the drawings of Rs. 30,000 were sufficient to meet the expenses of the marriage. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative has reiterated that the marriage cannot be performed with such a lesser amount in the family of a person of the status of the assessee. But he has not been able to substantiate his contention with the support of any evidence. In the absence of any enquiries under the provisions of section 133A(5) of the Income Tax Act and any questionnaire being issued to the assessee to ascertain the expenditure incurred for the marriage of his daughter, arbitrary addition of Rs. 1,20,000 without any legal or prudent basis is not justified in the eyes of law. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in his findings and this addition cannot be sustained in the given circumstances of the case. Hence, we dismiss the appeal of the department and uphold the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Appeal is dismissed.