R.S. Syal, A.M. - (1.) THIS appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 10th Nov., 2005 in relation to block period comprising of asst. yrs. 1997-98 to 2003-04.
(2.) First four grounds deal with the single issue regarding the confirmation of addition of Rs. 2,21,680 on the basis of assumed expenditure on the occasion of marriage ceremony of the assessee. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that a search action was taken upon the assessee along with others under Section 132(1) on 20th Dec, 2002. On the perusal of the bank account of the assessee, the AO observed that certain amounts were credited on various dates in his bank account which were explained by the assessee as gifts received at the time of marriage. It was stated the out of total gifts of Rs. 2,04,522, only Rs. 22,320 were received in cash and the remaining amount was by way of cheques/drafts. Regarding the expenses incurred by the assessee on his marriage on 3rd Feb., 2001 it was claimed that a sum of Rs. 6,000 was withdrawn on 15th Jan., 2001 and a further sum of Rs. 67,800 was on 2nd Feb., 2001, which were utilized towards marriage expenses. The AO noted that during the course of search, statement of Smt. Savitri Lakhotia, the grandmother of the assessee was recorded, who admitted that an expenditure of Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs was incurred on the marriage of the assessee which was contributed by Shri Om Prakash Lakhotia, the maternal uncle of the assessee who had adopted him. The AO noted that Shri Om Prakash Lakhotia had not shown any expenditure incurred by him on this occasion. Since the marriage was solemnized in Hotel Abhay Days and video recording was seized, he, therefore, took the statement of the grandmother into consideration and estimated the marriage expenses at Rs. 7 lakhs. Credit of expenditure incurred out of money received in Bhat ceremony at Rs. 2 lakhs and gifts received by the assessee at Rs. 2,40,520 were allowed and the remaining amount of Rs. 2,95,486 was held to be incurred out of unaccounted income. Further, a sum of Rs. 73,800 shown by the assessee as withdrawals was also reduced from the above amount and the remaining sum of Rs. 2,21,680 was held to be undisclosed income of the assessee. No relief was allowed in the first appeal.
(3.) WE have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. It is noted that except for the statement of Smt. Savitri Lakhotia, the grandmother of the assessee, there is no material/evidence to show that a sum of Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs was incurred as expenditure on the marriage of the assessee. When her statement is taken into consideration it has to be considered in totality. It emerges that apart from asserting the incurring of such expenditure, she further stated that the expenditure was incurred by Shri Om Prakash Lakhotia, the maternal uncle of the assessee who had adopted him. There is no reference at all to the assessee having spent any expenditure over and above that disclosed by him in his statement. Even if we go by the statement of the grandmother and conclude that the marriage expenditure was between Rs. 6 to Rs. 7 lakhs, the onus to prove the source of such expenditure was on Shri Om Pakash Lakhotia and not on the assessee. Apart from that, there is no reference to any material found during the course of search divulging the incurring of any unexplained expenditure by the assessee on this occasion. In our considered opinion, the assessee cannot be saddled with any such liability. By overturning the impugned order, we order for the deletion of this addition. Last effective ground regarding charging of interest under Section 158BFA(1) is consequential and accordingly allowed.;