Rajinder Mohan Lal v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax Circle-1(I), Chandigarh

Income-Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2012 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Income-Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2012 (O&M)Date of Decision: 01.08.2013 Rajinder Mohan Lal ..Appellant Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle-1(I), Chandigarh ..Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Present:Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate, for the respondent.-CM No. 24587CII of 2012 Mr. Urvashi Dugga, Advocate, for the respondent. Prayer in this application is to condone the delay of 26days in re-filing the appeal. Heard. For reasons stated in the application and argumentsaddressed, application is allowed and delay of 26 days in refiling theappeal is condoned. - IncomeTax Appeal No. 224 of 2012 The appellant challenges order dated 04.1.2012 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-B,Chandigarh, dismissing his appeal by raising the following substantialquestions of law:- “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,the Ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the clause (b) Income-Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2012 (O&M) 2 of proviso to sub-clause (vi) to sub-section (2) of section56 would apply to the gifts received on occasion of themarriage of the assessee and not on the gifts received onaccount of marriage of his daughter?” The appellant, an individual assessee, filed a return,for the assessment year 2007-08, showing a gross total income ofRs.16,71,877/-. The appellant's case was taken up for scrutiny underSection 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred toas the “Act”) by raising an objection with respect to Rs.21,07,513/-allegedly received as gifts from relatives and friends on theoccasion of his daughter's marriage. In response, the assessee,produced evidence, confirming receipt of `shagun' and `gifts' fromrelatives and friends. The Assessing Officer, however, ordered anaddition of Rs.21,07,513/- to the income of the assessee by holdingthat Section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, does not permit gifts received onaccount of an assessee's daughter wedding to be computed as“income from other sources”. Aggrieved by this order, the assesseefiled an appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) on 19.1.2011. A further appeal filed before theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”), wasdismissed on 04.1.2012. Counsel for the appellant submits that clause (b) of theproviso to sub-clause (vi) to sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act, Income-Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2012 (O&M) 3 include gifts received on the marriage of an assessee's children. It isfurther submitted that in Indian society, parents receive gifts fromrelatives and friends on the occasion of marriage of their children.The view taken by the Tribunal that gifts received at the time ofmarriage of the assessee's daughter do not fall within meaning ofword “individual”, should be set aside and the word “individual” maybe interpreted to include gifts received on the occasion of marriageof an assessee's child. Counsel for the respondent submits that the exemptionclause operates only with respect to marriage of an individual andnot to the marriage of an individual's children. While interpreting theword “individual”, the Tribunal has rightly held that gifts received atthe marriage of the appellant's daughter, are not exempted. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused theimpugned orders and have no hesitation in holding that there is noambiguity in proviso (b) to Section 56(2)(vi) of the Act and as noquestion of law arises for adjudication, the appeal must fail. Theproviso (b) to Section 56 (2)(vi) reads as follows:- “Provided that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money received— (a) from any relative; or (b) on the occasion of the marriage of the individual; or (c) under a will or by way of inheritance; or We have heard counsel for the parties, perused theimpugned orders and have no hesitation in holding that there is noambiguity in proviso (b) to Section 56(2)(vi) of the Act and as noquestion of law arises for adjudication, the appeal must fail. Theproviso (b) to Section 56 (2)(vi) reads as follows:- “Provided that this clause shall not apply to any sum of money received— (a) from any relative; or (b) on the occasion of the marriage of the individual; or (c) under a will or by way of inheritance; or (d) in contemplation of death of the payer; or (e) from any local authority as defined in the Explanation to clause (20) of section 10; Income-Tax Appeal No. 224 of 2012 (O&M) 4 The expression “individual” appearing in proviso (b) ofSection 56(2)(vi) of the Act, is preceded by the words “marriage” andtherefore, relates to the marriage of the individual concerned, i.e., theassessee and not to the marriage of any other person related to himin whatsoever degree, whether as his daughter or son. Theexpression “marriage of the individual” is unambiguous in its intentand does not admit to an interpretation, that it would include anamount received on the marriage of a daughter. If legislature hadintended that gifts received on the occasion of marriage of theassessee's children should be exempted, nothing preventedLegislature from adding the words “or his children”, after the words“marriage of the individual”. In view of unambiguous legislative intent, appearing in theproviso, the addition made to the appellant's income on account ofgifts received on the occasion of his daughter's marriage, is affirmedand the appeal, consequently, dismissed. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE 01.08.2013VK ( DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON ) JUDGE