TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugh piece of paper without any supporting evidence. 5. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not taking into consideration the following sources for marriage expense. a) Payment from personal saving bank A/c 2,18,081/- b) Contribution by Mr. Ram Avtar 5,80,000/- c) Sagan from relatives & Friends 15,10,800/- d) Personal source of Mrs. Mukta Gupta & Vaishali Gupta 1,85,000/- e) Personal saving of Mr. Subhash Gupta 45,000/- 6. The learned CIT(A) has not considered that the following marriage functions were held and the payment were made from personal sources of Mr. Subhash Gupta:- a. Ring Ceremony 1,00,431/- b. Marriage Ceremony 1,17,650/- c. Family relatives & friends for get together 45,000/- 7. The Learned Assessing Authority failed to bring on record any amount of inflated salary. On the contrary higher payment of salary was considered by the learned visiting official again the actual salary paid to employee as per record of the firm. 8. The Learned Assessing Authority did not consider the attendance register of the employee for the purpose of allowing salary expenses. No speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yment of Rs. 1,17,650/- made in respect of function held at Faridabad on 17th February, 2009 and as per the second bill Rs. 1,00,430/- had been spent on a Lunch on 13th February,2009. Further, the assessee claimed that there was no record of attendance or dispatch of cards and there was no video or CD available. The CIT(A) gave a finding that it was also confirmed that there was no bills regarding expense on purchase of clothes, Jewellery and other ancillary items for the bride, bride groom and other relatives. The CIT(A) further observed that the list of expenses totaling Rs. 35,06,000/- also does not contain any expenditure on clothes, jewellery and gifts or any expenditure on catering, tents on the marriage functions. The list only includes expenditure on dry fruits, silver items, quilt, suitcase, electronic items, clothes, and not on jewellery and on reception etc. Besides, the two bills enclosed by the assessee shows that there is gap of 5 days between the function held on 13th and that held on 17th. Thus there were other marriage ceremonies/ functions in the intervening days and from the bills it is apparent that they are not the bills on account of the main marriage ceremony....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....k Manilal Thakkar V A. CIT 2005 97 ITD 361(Ahd) 7. The Ld. AR further submitted that vide instruction no. F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated March 10, 2003; the Board has pointed the instances where the assessee has been forced to confess undisclosed income during the course of search, seizure and survey operation. Such confession, if not based upon credible evidence are later retracted by the concern assessee while filing returns of Income, do not serve any useful purpose and therefore, there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed. No attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. 8. As relates to marriage expenses, the Ld. AR submitted that there was marriage ceremony of Ms. Vaishali Gupta D/o Sh. Subhash Gupta during the financial year 2008-09 (A.Y. 2009-10). The Ld. AR submitted that any personal expenditure incurred in the individual capacity cannot be treated as income of the firm on the basis of confessional statement of one of the partner. There was no evidence to prove that the firm paid any amount to Sh. Subhash Gupta out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the CIT(A) has taken all the aspects of the case and the disallowance on unexplained expenses out of firms income of Rs. 35,06,000/- and Inflated salary expense of Rs. 6,25,210/- was just and proper. The Ld. DR also submitted the case laws referred by the Ld. AR are not relevant. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant documents. The assessee is a partnership firm. The submission of the Ld. AR that any personal expenditure incurred in the individual capacity cannot be treated as income of the firm on the basis of confessional statement of one of the partner. There was no evidence to prove that the firm paid any amount to Sh. Subhash Gupta out of its undisclosed income. The income has been added on assumption basis. If any income has to be added it should have been taken in the hands of the concerned partner instead of the firm. No evidence / material was found to prove the existence of such income of earnings in the hands of the firm except the statement made by the partner Sh. Subhash Gupta. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Girdhari Lal Nannelal Vs. Sales Tax Commissioner, M.P. (1977) 109 ITR 726 (SC) wherein it was he....