TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (5) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the marriage of a son, over and above the sum disclosed by the assessee, is the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources ?" The accounting year relevant to this assessment year ended on June 30, 1966. The assessee was a partner of a firm, M/s. Ushnak Mal Mool Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The assessee's son was married on November 16, 1965. The assessee claimed that the marriage expenses were Rs. 9,000 out of which Rs. 4,000 were met by gifts from friends and relations, while Rs. 5,000 were met by withdrawal from the firm on November 20, 1965. The ITO took the view that the exact amount of expenditure was not satisfactorily explained, and, hence, an additional expenditure of Rs. 10,000 was added to the income. This was on estimate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash before the marriage whereas the main withdrawal has taken place five days after the marriage. The learned representative for the assessee before us sought to embellish the claim by referring to the assessee's wife's pin money and even to the Pakistan aggression, the whole thing appears to us to be a somewhat awkward attempt at disguising what really was the expenditure which was incurred in connection with the marriage. In the circumstances, the addition made by the Income-tax Officer seems to us to be more than justified." The conclusion of the Tribunal was that the addition of Rs. 10,000 was not unreasonable or excessive considering the facts of the case. The main contention on behalf of the assessee is that there is no materia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son for striking out the addition in that case. Keeping in view the normal course of events, the expenditure on the marriage of the assessee's son must have been incurred by the assessee himself in the present case and we have, therefore, to see whether the estimate of Rs. 10,000 is unjustified because it is lacking in details or is otherwise excessive. Another case referred to was B. C. Paul v. CIT [1982] 136 ITR 395 (Cal), relating to income from horse racing. We do not really find any connection between this case and the present. In CIT v. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Homi Jehangir Gheesta v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 135 (SC), there are observations regarding inference of facts to be drawn in particular circumstances. But ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... but cloth valued about Rs. 2,000 was purchased in cash from M/s Ushnak Mal Mool Chand, New Delhi, where he is a partner, some 10 or 15 days before the marriage. The assessee emphatically repeated that cash was paid at the time of purchase of sarees, etc., from M/s. Ushnak Mal Mool Chand, New Delhi. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the marriage took place on November 16, 1965, and the reception on November 17, 1965, whereas the sum of Rs. 5,000 has been withdrawn from the firm on November 20, 1965. It is not understood as to how the assessee could make purchase of cloth in cash and how he could meet other expenses including the reception. It is a matter of common knowledge that most of the expenses have to be done before marr....