The Delhi Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled the taxpayer had elaborated, deposits were being incurred in the way of cash withdrawals which would be functioned before for the intention of the marriage of her daughter.
Bench, Saktijit Dey (Judicial Member) saw that a taxpayer who explained the case was reasonable if the assessing officer draws the record of any opposite material to demonstrate that the taxpayer should be made much more expenditure on the marriage of her daughter compared to the provided claimed.
The taxpayer is a resident individual. For the assessment year beneath the case, the taxpayer furnished an income return dated 05.08.2017, which shows an income of Rs 2,50,000.
For the assessment proceeding the assessing officer sees that under the details available on the record the taxpayer has deposited the cash with Rs 22,01,000 in the period of demonetization. Hence he asked the taxpayer to elaborate on the source of the deposit. Any answer to the question, the taxpayer provided that the cash available with her was out of the withdrawals which were made before for the purpose of the marriage of her daughter and were likewise gets deposited in the bank account.
Read Also: Confusion Cleared! GST Levy on Marriage or Goods & Services
The assessing officer was not get persuaded via submission which the taxpayer has made. He sees that the cash withdrawals incurred by the taxpayer are for the marriage of her daughter. Hence the cash deposits were being incurred during the duration of demonetization which can not be out of former withdrawals.
But, partially considering the claim of the taxpayer, the Assessing Officer has added the amount of Rs.12,01,000 under section 69A read with section 115BBE. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the taxpayer added and the same was upheld.
Recommended: Income Tax Liabilities on Marriage Gift & for Divorced Couples
The taxpayer mentioned that she does not have made many expenses on the marriage since the same was a love marriage and another thing is that the same would have functioned in a Gurudwara when close relatives were present.
Tribunal ruled that the addition incurred via the assessing officer was not being upheld.
| Case Title | Harjeet Kaur Versus Income Tax Officer |
| Citation | ITA No.2013/Del/2021 |
| Date of Pronouncement | 25.10.2022 |
| Appellant | Sh. Rajiv Bansal, CA |
| Respondent | Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR |
| Delhi ITAT | Read Order |
