Raghunandan Goyal, 3/21, Kala Kuan Housing Board, Alwar(Raj.) v. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 142/2018 Raghunandan Goyal, 3/21, Kala Kuan Housing Board, Alwar(Raj.)PAN . ----Appellant Versus Income-Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), 22, Moti Doongri Road,Alwar(Raj.) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri.For Respondent(s): Mrs. Parinitoo Jain. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR 14/08/2018 Judgment This is assessee’s appeal challenging judgment14.11.2017 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (forshort ‘the ITAT’) in ITA No. 238/JP/2017 and 249/JP/2017. Appellant-assessee filed its return of income on31.03.2009 for assessment year 2008-09 showing income of Rs.1,05,850/-. A notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) came to be issued on 30.03.2015 to theassessee on the ground that he had spent an amount of Rs.58,77,000/- in the marriage of his daughter while income returnfiled by him was only of Rs. 1,05,850/-. The assessee filed itsreply dated 27.04.2015 stating that original return may be treatedto be his return filed in response to notice under Section 148 ofthe Act. In the assessment order passed by the Income TaxOfficer, Ward-1(1), Alwar (for short ‘the ITO’) on 08.03.2016, addition of Rs. 58,02,000/-was made on account of unexplainedmarriage expenses. The ITO also noted that the assessee hadreceived an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- as advance against landand an amount of Rs. 41,52,255/- as unsecured loans. Thus, totalof Rs. 71,52,255/- was added in the returned income underSection 68 of the Act. The assessee filed appeal beforeCommissioner, Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar [or short ‘theCIT(A)’], who vide order dated 23.01.2017 confirmed the additionon account of unexplained marriage expenses only to the extentof Rs. 11,10,000/- on account of 1 kg. Gold brick received by theassessee’s wife from her father-in-law many years back. Asregards addition under Section 68 of the Act, CIT(A) deletedaddition of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground of confirmation filed bythe creditor M/s. City Star Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and the fact thatthe creditor had PAN No. and that the money wasreceived through banking channels. CIT(A) also deleted additionof Rs. 41,52,255/- on the ground that the source thereof wassatisfactorily explained. The ITO filed appeal before the ITAT asalso assessee filed cross appeal against confirmation ofdisallowance of Rs. 11,10,000/-. The ITAT vide its judgmentdated 14.11.2017 confirmed the addition of Rs. 11,10,000/- onaccount of unexplained marriage expenses on the ground thatthere was no evidence in the form of a will or gift deed to supportthe fact that a gold brick was given to the assessee’s wife by herfather-in-law many years back and that the affidavit filed insupport thereof was from the assessee and not from either thedonor or the donee. However, the ITAT reversed order of CIT(A)with regard to credit of Rs. 30,00,000/- on the ground that thefiling of confirmation and the fact that money had been received from banking channels was not enough to discharge initial onuscast upon the assesee. from banking channels was not enough to discharge initial onuscast upon the assesee. Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, learned counsel for the appellantargued that the ITAT erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,10,000/- doubting the explanation of the assessee that thesource of the amount was a gold brick given to the assessee’s wifeby her father-in-law, which was utilised to meet the expenses ofthe marriage. The occasion being the marriage of their daughter,the assessee’s wife was also the parent of their daughter and hadthe social obligation to share in the expenses of her daughter’smarriage. It is argued that the assessee had filed an affidavit toconfirm the source of the amount of Rs. 11,10,000/- and theaffidavit could not be rejected unless there was evidence to thecontrary. If ITAT had any doubt, it at the maximum could haveasked for affidavit of donor or donee in this regard. ITAT erred inholding that no will or gift deed had been filed whereas in earliertimes, such documents were not prepared and gifting of golditems was common. Initial onus cast upon the assessee withregard to credit of Rs. 30,00,000/- had been discharged by theassessee when he filed a confirmation from the creditor, its PANnumber and the proof that the money had come through bankingchannels. Learned counsel argued that ITAT has erred in law inholding that no sale deed of the impugned land has beenproduced, whereas the ITAT as the highest fact finding body couldhave asked the appellant to produce the sale deed, which it neverdid. Copy of the sale deed and confirmation has been producedon record before this Court. It is argued that actual transfer ofthe said land took place on 07.10.2011 and was purchased by the party, which had given the advance of Rs. 30,00,000/- to theappellant. Mrs. Parinitoo Jain, learned counsel for the respondentopposed the appeal and argued that the appellant-assesseecannot for the first time be permitted to file documents like saledeed and its confirmation before this Court, which documentswere not produced before the ITAT. The ITAT did not thereforehave the advantage to look into those documents and to examinewhether or not they would have any bearing on the matter. Having heard learned counsel for the parties andperused the material on record and considering the fact that saledeed (Annexure-4) and its confirmation letter pertain to therelevant period showing sale of the property by the assessee toM/s. City Star Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., we deem it appropriate to setaside the judgment passed by the ITAT and remit the matter backto ITAT to examine the same afresh in the light of aforesaiddocuments and pass fresh judgment in the appeal in accordancewith law. In view of above, present appeal is disposed of.Impugned judgment dated 14.11.2017 passed by the ITAT is setaside and the matter is remitted back to the ITAT to examine thematter afresh in the light of aforesaid documents and pass freshorder in the appeal in accordance with law. Stay Application No. 1737/2018 stands disposed of. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J