TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting year under reference, the assessee got the marriage of his daughter solemnised. The assessee claimed that he had incurred total expenses of Rs. 34,000 on the marriage of his daughter. However, the AO got inquiries made through his Inspector. It was found that the daughter of the assessee, viz., Smt. Sangeeta, had filed her WT returns for the asst. yrs. 1984-85 to 1986-87 and 1987-88 under the Amnesty Scheme at Jodhpur, wherein she had disclosed total wealth of Rs. 1,71,358 which also included the value of gold ornaments and jewellery at Rs. 1,25,558. She was married on 27th June, 1985. The AO also recorded the statement of the assessee who confirmed that his daughter was totally dependent on him upto the date of marriage and she had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disclosed wealth of the daughter of the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in allowing partial relief and reducing the addition to Rs. 70,000 by recording the following finding in para 6 of the aforesaid order: "We have heard the rival submissions. In our opinion, here also, in the absence of any evidence having been adduced by the assessee to show that the statement of Sangeeta was false and in the absence of his adducing any evidence to the effect that the declarations in the wealth-tax returns although filed under the Amnesty Scheme made by Sangeeta with regard to asst. yr. 1985-86 when she was dependent on the assessee were false, we upheld the view of the learned CIT(A) to the effect that to the tune of Rs. 50,000....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) who upheld the levy of penalty in respect of an addition of Rs. 70,000. However, the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty in respect of addition of Rs. 36,000 on the ground that the same was based on mere estimate of expenses. The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A). Hence, this appeal before us. 5. The learned counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in quantum appeal where in para 6, the Tribunal has observed that the Revenue has not been able to adduce any evidence that all the ornaments had been given by the assessee himself particularly when Smt. Sangeeta stated that these had been received from the parents and parents-in-laws as well as from other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The mere fact that the addition has been made and sustained in appeal does not by itself justify imposition of penalty until the Revenue establishes that the assessee was guilty of dishonest or contumacious conduct. Now, the fact remains that the addition has been made purely on the basis of jewellery disclosed by the assessee's daughter in her wealth-tax return. In her statement recorded by the AO (copy placed at pp. 10 to 12 of the paper book), Smt. Sangeeta had stated that only part of the ornaments were received from her father and the remaining ornaments were received from her in-laws and various other relations. The AO has not made any further inquiry with the relations to find out whether Smt. Sangeeta had actually received such orna....