TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (1) TMI 1000
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the residential as well as business premises of the assessee. Certain incriminating documents were seized by the search party which showed that there was a marriage at the residence of the assessee. The assessee's younger brother was married on 22-3-1984. The expenditure incurred by the assessee, as debited in the books of account, was only Rs. 10,000 apart from an expenditure of Rs. 5,000 towards gift to the couple at the time of marriage. Considering the standard of living of the assessee and his family the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that the assessee might have incurred expenditure of Rs. 1 lakh on the occasion of the marriage. As the books showed expenditure of Rs. 10,000, the balance of Rs. 90,000 was added by the Assessin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lchand P. Vora, spent Rs. 8,000, Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 5,000 respectively and that the total withdrawal made towards marriage expenses, apart from the gifts of Rs. 5,000 each given by the brothers to the wife of the brother who got married, worked out to Rs. 30,000. 4. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee's capital account showed withdrawal of Rs. 10,000 for marriage expenses, whereas for household expenses only Rs. 2,000 was withdrawn and, therefore, the total withdrawal during the year was only Rs. 12,000 which could not be considered as adequate for marriage expenses as well as household expenses. She, therefore, took the entire withdrawal of Rs. 12,000 as household expenses. The CIT(A) further observed that the bifurcati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de in the hands of the assessee. In support of his claim that the presumption raised by the Revenue is highly arbitrary, the learned counsel submitted that the assessee lives in a joint family where there are other earning members. The assessee's brothers including the brother who was married in 1984 were all gainfully employed and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that only the assessee might have incurred the expenditure on the occasion of his brother's marriage. Such presumption has absolutely no basis in the absence of any evidence to link the alleged expenditure with the assessee. The learned counsel also submitted that the CIT(A) has wrongly taken the drawings as Rs. 2,000, whereas the drawings were Rs. 12,000. Adverting our attention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asonable in estimating the marriage expenses. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madan Lal v. CIT [1984] 42 CTR (Del.) 197 : [1984] 149 ITR 533 (Del.) to submit that an addition under section 69C towards marriage expenses can be made on estimate basis. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. Admittedly, the marriage of the younger brother of the assessee was solemnized in March 1984, i.e., in the financial year 1983-84. Going by the language of section 69C of the Act, any expenditure incurred in any financial year should be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year irrespective of the previous year followed by the assessee. In the instant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir books showed withdrawals towards marriage expenses totalling Rs. 20,000. The Commissioner (Appeals) had committed a factual error in holding that the drawings for household expenses were only to the tune of Rs. 2,000 as against the correct figure of Rs. 12,000. It was also assumed by the Tax authorities that the assessee might have incurred expenditure on purchase of jewellery for the bride, which has again no basis. The Assessing Officer could not lay his hands on any proof to suggest that the marriage was solemnized on a lavish scale. Thus, considering the expenditure incurred of Rs. 30,000 by all the brothers put together and in the absence of any proof to suggest that the assessee alone incurred the rest of the expenditure, we are un....