AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 78
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(Appeals) in allowing part relief on the additions made on the above grounds relating to marriage expenses and jewellery gifted at the time of marriage. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that assessee had admitted in his statement given to Police Authorities on 09.12.2009 that he had spent approximately Rs. 45.50 lacs on the marriage of his daughter. In the assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that he had spent a sum of Rs. 10 lacs only on the marriage of his daughter besides jewellery and silver ornaments, value of which was Rs. 29-30 lacs at that time. It was also contended that assessee had received shagun of Rs. 14.13 lacs and list of 144 persons who had given shagun was also filed before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that the explanation of the assessee was not in consonance with the statement given to the police authorities. The Assessing Officer asked for the details of marriage expenses incurred by assessee on the marriage of his daughter including the amount spent in the engagement and ring ceremony and source of this expenditure and also to furnish the evidence in respect of shagun of Rs. 11,000/- and above. The Assessing Officer quest....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lery to the daughter of the assessee. The assessee has stated in the FIR that jewellery of approximately 55 lacs was given in the marriage of his daughter. The Assessing Officer asked for the source. The assessee submitted a reply explaining therein that jewellery and silver utensils were given as per 'Will' dated 04.07.2002 of mother of the assessee and value of the jewellery was Rs. 29.3 lacs at the time of marriage. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and noted that 'Will' is unregistered and no Letter of Administration has been obtained from the Court. It was also found that the fact of gift of entire jewellery to the grand daughter is unbelievable. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made addition of Rs. 55 lacs on account of unexplained jewellery given in the marriage of daughter of the assessee. 8. The assessee challenged the addition before ld. CIT(Appeals) and written submissions of the assessee are reproduced in the appellate order in which the assessee explained that assessee never made any statement of value of jewellery of Rs. 55 lacs. The value of jewellery in 2005 at the time of marriage was Rs. 29.30 lacs. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was thus, partly allowed. 11. We have heard ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and referred to PB-66 which is the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment. PB-23 is the statement of the assessee to the Police Authorities under section 161 of the CPC dated 09.12.2009. PB-106 is the judgment of the High Court dated 12.12.2014 through which the matrimonial disputes were settled between the daughter of the assessee Ms. Megha Garg and her husband Shri Dheeraj Garg. He has referred to PB-33 which is FIR lodged by daughter of assessee on 21.11.2009 in which it was explained that in the marriage of complainant, the parents of the complainant and relatives and friends gave gold, silver and diamonds ornaments. List of the items was also enclosed. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no requirement in the column of return to disclose marriage expenses. The Assessing Officer in the reasons for re-opening of assessment wanted to verify the marriage expenses and jewellery given to his d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity of cases, are not registered at all. To draw any inference against the genuineness of the 'Will' on the ground of its non registration appears to us to be wholly unwarranted". He has submitted that valuation report of the jewellery at the time of marriage was filed which support value of the jewellery as per 'Will' was Rs. 29.30 lacs. Family jewellery benefit has been correctly given by the ld. CIT(Appeals) of Rs. 6 lacs. He submitted that assessee did not give gift any jewellery to his daughter. The 'Will' is genuine and after death of testator of 'Will' the jewellery was handed over to his wife who in-turn at the time of marriage of his daughter has given the entire jewellery to his daughter. Therefore, addition of jewellery in the hands of assessee is unjustified. Affidavits of both the witnesses to the 'Will' and Notary Public were filed before Assessing Officer which have not been disbelieved. Mother of assessee expired on 15.05.2003 and thereafter daughter of assessee became owner of the gold jewellery. Therefore, no addition in assessment year under appeal could be made. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 65 lakh (Rs. 10 lakh on marriage ceremony + Rs. 55 lakh on jewellery) has escaped income. In view of above, 1 have reasons to believe that by reason of omission on the part of assessee to disclose fully & truly all material facts in the return of income, income to the tune of approximately Rs. 65 lakh has escaped assessment. Sd/- (Vinod K. Sharma) Income-tax Officer Ward 1(3), Chandigarh Dated 13.03.2011" According to the above reasons, the marriage of daughter of assessee Ms. Megha was solemnized on 18.11.2005. It is also noted in the reasons that in the statement given to the police on 09.12.2009, assessee has stated to have incurred approximately Rs. 45-50 lacs on the marriage of his daughter. Further, the gift of jewellery of Rs. 55 lacs to his daughter at the time of marriage was stated to be as per 'Will' of assessee's mother. The Assessing Officer in the reasons noted that source of expenditure incurred on the marriage including cost of jewellery gifted by assessee to his daughter are required to be verified. Thus, Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded wanted to verify the facts of incurring of the marriage expenses by assessee for performing the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the guise of power to reopen an assessment cannot seek to undertake a fishing or rowing inquiry and seek to verify the claims as if it were a scrutiny assessment." 15. The sole reliance on the statement recorded by the police under section 161 of CrPC on 09.12.2009 itself was wrong because Section 161 of CrPC deals with examination of witness by police. It requires that the Investigation Officer may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The statement recorded by the Police Officer under section 161 of the CrPC is not signed by the witness. The genuineness of the statement recorded under section 161 of CrPC could be tested only at the time of the statement of witness recorded in the court. The statement recorded by Police Officer during investigation is neither given 'on oath' nor it is tested by Cross Examination. According to the law of evidence, such statement is not evidence of the fact stated therein and therefore, it is not considered as 'substantive evidence'. 16. Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Sewaki v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1981 CriLJ 919 held that "It is beyond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is pending at Jaipur. It would, therefore, show that statement of the assessee under section 161 CrPC was not signed by him and could not be treated as substantive evidence and it was merely part of the investigation. It could be used only for a limited purpose under the law, therefore, reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on such a statement was wholly misplaced for the purpose of recording the reasons for re-opening of the assessment. The Assessing Officer also referred to the 'will' of mother of the assessee through which jewellery was given after death of the testator to Ms. Megha and mother of the assessee expired on 15.05.2003, therefore, after death of the testator if jewellery of gold is inherited by Ms. Megha, the same would not fall in assessment year under appeal and further in the 'Will" nothing is mentioned if assessee was beneficiary of any of the articles or that assessee has gifted any gold jewellery to his daughter at the time of marriage. Therefore, Assessing Officer was not justified in re-opening of the assessment on the basis of the aforesaid facts. It would show that there was nothing in the reasons recorded to show that any tangible material....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 10,87,000/-. The assessee has given list of persons who have given shagun at the time of marriage of daughter of the assessee. This list contained the complete names and addresses and in some of the cases, their telephone number as well. The Assessing Officer, without making any enquiry from any of these persons who have given shagun to the assessee in the marriage of his daughter, has accepted the claim of assessee of receipt of shaguns in a sum of Rs. 14,13,000/-. The ld. CIT(Appeals), without giving any notice to the assessee for taking any adverse view in this regard, has restricted the benefit of shaguns in a sum of Rs. 6 lacs only. The order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) is, therefore, unjustified and cannot be sustained in law. If ld. CIT(Appeals) wanted to reduce the benefit extended by the Assessing Officer, it would amount to enhancement of the assessment and as such, ld. CIT(Appeals) is required to give specific notice to the assessee showing his intention to enhance the assessment by reducing the relief already granted by the Assessing Officer. However, the impugned order did not show anything and as such, ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in restricting the benefit o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee is justified in contending that marriage expenses have been estimated merely on surmises and conjectures. Thus, there is no basis to sustain the orders of authorities below for estimating marriage expenses in a sum of Rs. 20/25 lacs. The ld. CIT(Appeals) gave a benefit of estimated past savings and contributions made by the family members of Rs. 6 lacs for the purpose of restricting part addition. If the same amount is added to shagun received by assessee in a sum of Rs. 14,13,000/-, no addition of Rs. 8 lacs would sustain because Assessing Officer has himself granted relief to the assessee in a sum of Rs. 14.13 lacs which ld. CIT(Appeals) without any reasons did not consider favourably to the assessee. 19(ii) The Assessing Officer in the assessment order, considering the status of the assessee has presumed that assessee might have incurred so many expenditure on different occasions but nothing was brought on record whether assessee has performed any of such ceremonies which are large in number noted in the assessment order. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer was wholly based upon assumptions on certain facts which did not exist. In this case, at the time of hear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....testator Smt. Sheela Devi expired on 15.05.2003. Thus, according to the 'will' of Smt. Sheela Devi, Ms. Megha became owner of all the jewellery and silver utensils. These ornaments thus, came in possession of Ms. Megha according to the 'Will' and would pertain to assessment year 2004-05. May be that her mother on account of custodian of the ornaments and silver utensils have given the physical custody to Ms. Megha at the time of her marriage on 18.11.2005 but she became rightful owner of these ornaments on the death of Smt. Sheela Devi. Therefore, same would not fall in assessment year under appeal i.e. 2006-07. The assessee filed affidavit of both the witnesses before the Assessing Officer along with affidavit of Notary Public who has attested the 'Will' of Smt. Sheela Devi. They have confirmed execution of the genuine 'Will' by testator Smt. Sheela Devi. If the Assessing Officer wanted to dispute the genuineness of the 'Will', the Assessing Officer should have examined the witnesses to the 'Will' at the assessment stage, but the Assessing Officer did not make any effort to examine any of the witnesses or the Notary Public who has at....