Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore
Shri Rajat Mahesjwari, Indore vs Dcit 2 (1), Indore on 13 February, 2019
Rajat Maheshwari
IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
INDORE BENCH, INDORE
BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017
Assessment Year 2004-05
Shri Rajat Maheshwari, DCIT 2(1),
2/1 North Rajmohalla, Indore Vs. Indore
(Appellant) (Respondent )
PAN No.ABTPM7987L
Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT
Assessee by S/Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit
Gaur, CA's
Date of Hearing 04.02.2019
Date of Pronouncement 13.02.2019
ORDER
PER MANISH BORAD, AM.
The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2004-05 is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I (in short 'Ld.CIT(A)'], Indore dated 22.05.2017 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the 'Act') dated 26.10.2015 framed by DCIT-2(1), Indore. 1 Rajat Maheshwari IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017
2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual earning income from salary and interest. Return of income for Assessment Year 2004-05 filed on 04.10.2015 declaring income of Rs. 1,54,998/-. A search was conducted at the residence of the assessee on 18.08.2004 & 19.08.2004 and along with cash and jewellery, various other incriminating materials were found and seized. Subsequently notices u/s 153A & 143(2) of the Act was issued. In compliance to the notice income tax return filed on 5.2.2005 declaring income at Rs.1,54,998/-. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee was asked to explain various seized documents. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld. A.O completed the assessment making additions towards unexplained gift of Rs.5,00,000/-, unexplained marriage gifts at Rs.1,25,500/- and unexplained expenses in marriage u/s 69C at Rs.12,19,550/- and assessed total income at Rs.19,99,548/- Against these additions assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and partly succeeded.
3. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising following grounds of appeal;
2 Rajat Maheshwari IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017 "1. That the Learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the AO in the appellant income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged gifts.
2. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.12,19,550/- made by the AO in the appellant income u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained expenses in marriage of the appellant.
3]. That, the appellant further craves leave to add, alter and/or amend any of the foregoing grounds of appeal as and when considered necessary."
4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us.
5. Ground No.1:
As regards Ground No.1 relating to addition of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act for alleged gifts, Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the issue raised in this ground is squarely covered against the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal in same group case of ACIT V/s Shri Sudhir Maheshwari and others ITA No.373/Ind/2011 order dated 6.8.2012. From the perusal of the finding of the Tribunal in para 4.3.4 we find that similar type of addition relating to gift which was also claimed to be owned by the company Rajat Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd was confirmed by the Tribunal.
3 Rajat Maheshwari IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017 "4.3.4 Now coming to legal submission made, the appellant has taken the stand that since the gifts of Rs.2,00,000/- were not actually taken by him he cannot be burdened with the responsibility of establishing such gift transactions. The contention of the appellant is absolutely devoid of any merit. The appellant cannot get himself absolved from the responsibility of explaining the entries in his own bank account. If the appellant claims that the bank deposits were not result of gifts than it was absolutely his responsibility to explain the source of such deposits. The appellant is director company Rajant Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd and therefore the owning of the amount of gift by the company has neither much relevance nor any credence. Since, the appellant has failed to explain the source of deposits in his bank account, the action of the AO in making the addition of Rs.2,00,000/- is found perfectly in order. Accordingly, the addition is made by the AO is confirmed and this ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed".
6. After examining the facts of the instant case we find that the assessee is a member of same group and the alleged gift of Rs.5,00,000/- has also been claimed to have been received by the company named Rajat Gems & Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. We are therefore inclined to sustain the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act for the alleged gifts as the assessee failed to explain its source and 4 Rajat Maheshwari IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017 thus no interference is called for in the finding of Ld. CIT(A). Ground No.1 of the assessee's appeal stands dismissed.
7. Now we take up the issue relating to addition of Rs.12,19,550/- u/s 69C of the Act for unexplained expenses in marriage. Ld. A.O made this addition on the basis of marriage invitation cards of the assessee which was held on 16.2.2004. On the strength of the seized documents which included a list of 1589 invitees, Ld. A.O estimated the expenses at Rs.16,00,000/-, which may have been incurred for these number of guests and after giving set off for the marriage expenses shown by the assessee at Rs.3,80,450/- remaining amount of Rs.12,19,550/- was added and the same was confirmed by Ld.CIT(A) also.
8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the addition is merely estimated because number of guests were much less and the list was a proposed list and not a final list of the invitees who attended the ceremony. On going through the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee before the lower authorities as well as the loose papers impounded during the course of search we observe 5 Rajat Maheshwari IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017 that at page 1 to 57 of BS-4 and page 1 to 97 of BS-12 list of tentative invitees were 1589 persons but in the very same set of seized documents at item 15 of BS-1 there was invoice dated 18.2.2004 for printing of 1000 invitation card. Further the proof of payment to the caterers were also part of seized records. The addition made by Ld. A.O seems to be merely estimated because other than the list of invitees no other material evidence was unearthed by the search team which could prove that 1589 invitees attended the ceremony. Therefore in absence of no other evidence placed before us by the Revenue authorities and in the given facts and circumstances of the case it will not be justified to sustain the estimated addition u/s69C of the Act merely on the basis of list of invitees. In the result the addition of Rs.12,19,550/- u/s 69C of the Act stands deleted. Ground No.2 of assessee's appeal is allowed.
9. Ground No.3 is general in nature which needs no adjudication.
6 Rajat Maheshwari IT(SS) No.191/Ind/2017
10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
The order pronounced in the open Court on 13.02.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
दनांक /Dated : 13 February, 2019
/Dev
Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A)
concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file.
By Order,
Asstt.Registrar, I.T.A.T., Indore
7