ORDER
D. Manmohan, J.M.
1. These two appeals are filed at the instance of the assessee and they pertain to asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1987-88.
2. In the appeal for the asst. yr. 1985-86, the only issue raised before us pertains to the addition of Rs. 60,000 sustained by the CIT(A) referable to the undisclosed marriage expenses. On 9th September, 1986, a search and seizure operation was conducted 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 22nd March, 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 AO 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 AO as undisclosed expenditure, presumably under s. 69C of the Act.
3. Aggrieved, the assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the addition made by the AO is on ad hoc basis and it is arbitrary because the AO assumed that the assessee incurred the whole expenditure for the marriage of the assessee’s brother and failed to appreciate that the other brothers of the assessee had also spent in connection with the marriage of their brother apart from the fact that the brother, who was married, had independent source of income. At the time of hearing, it was submitted that the expenditure on the side of the bridegroom would always be low as compared to the expenditure incurred by the parents of the bride, whereas the AO has arbitrarily estimated the expenditure at Rs. 1 lakh. In support of the contention that the expenditure incurred was low, it was submitted that the marriage was solemnized in a Wadi of the community and only a sum of Rs. 30,000 was spent on the occasion of the marriage as under :
Rs.
(a) Wedding card 1,000
(b) Rent of the Wadi 500
(c) Clothes 5,000
(d) Lunch and cold drinks 18,000
(e) Other expenses 5,000
--------
30,000
--------
4. It was further submitted that the other brothers also lived along with the assessee in a joint family and apart from the assessees spending of Rs. 10,000, the other brothers, Shri Ramnik P. Vora, Mr. Arvind P. Vora and Mr. Mulchand 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.
5. The CIT(A) 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 bifurcation of the expenditure of Rs. 30,000 incurred on the marriage does not include expenditure towards purchase of jewellery for the bride and, therefore, she estimated Rs. 50,000 as the probable expenditure on jewellery, considering the status of the family. She further observed that the expenditure on jewellery at Rs. 50,000 is very reasonable because in a Hindu wedding jewellery is important and definitely given to the bride. As the assessee is the eldest amongst the brothers, he must have incurred expenditure to the extent of Rs. 50,000 on the purchase of jewellery. Considering the overall circumstances, she was of the opinion that the wedding expenses should be estimated at Rs. 80,000, and since the assessee explained expenditure to the extent of Rs. 20,000, referable to the expenditure incurred by other brothers, the balance addition of Rs. 60,000 was confirmed. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee raised a technical objection that an addition under s. 69C of the Act can be made only in the asst. yr. 1984-85 and not in the asst. yr. 1985-86 because the marriage was solemnized in March, 1984, which falls in the financial year relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85. He further submitted that addition under s. 69C cannot be made on mere surmises and presumptions, and in the absence of any proof to show that such expenditure was incurred by the assessee, no addition can be made 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 to para 3 of the order of the CIT(A), the learned counsel submitted that unless the drawings are taken at Rs. 12,000, the balances on the credit side and debit side do not tally and this clearly shows that the CIT(A)’s observation as regards the low drawings is based on the mistaken figure adopted by her. Alternatively, it was submitted that gold jewellery, if any, purchased by the assessee at the time of wedding was offered to tax in the proceedings under s. 132(4) of the Act by offering to tax jewellery worth Rs. 4,30,283 in the 132 proceedings. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Yadu Hari Dalmia vs. CIT (1980) 126 ITR 48 (Del) in support of his plea that estimate without any details is bad in law.
7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the claim regarding other brothers spending some more amount on the occasion of the marriage of the younger brother and the further claim that the younger brother has independent source of income was not raised before the CIT(A) and, therefore, such argument deserves to be rejected outright as an afterthought. He further submitted that the assessee being the eldest member in the family, it is the practice in the Hindu community that he should celebrate the wedding of his younger brother and, therefore, the presumption raised by the Tax authorities is in order. He further submitted that the CIT(A) was very reasonable in estimating the marriage expenses. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Madan Lal vs. CIT (1984) 149 ITR 533 (Del) to submit that an addition under s. 69C towards marriage expenses can be made on estimate basis.
8. 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 s. 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 case, the assessee followed Samvat year as the previous year and, therefore, the date of marriage falls within the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1985-86, whereas s. 69C uses the term “financial year” meaning thereby that addition, if any, should be made in the asst. yr. 1984-85 in respect of the financial year 1983-84. Our view is supported by the following decisions :
(1) Harlal Mannulal vs. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 11 (MP);
(2) Ram Swarup Cold Storage & Allied Industries vs. Asstt. CIT & Anr. (1991) 192 ITR 537, 542 (All); and
(3) CIT vs. Lakshman Swaroop Gupta & Bros. (1975) 100 ITR 222 (Raj).
9. Thus, the addition made by the AO as confirmed by the CIT(A) has no legs to stand insofar as this year is concerned.
10. Though it is not necessary for us to go into the other aspects, but having regard to the detailed arguments advanced before us, we proceed to consider the other issues also for the sake of completeness. Addition under s. 69C can, no doubt, be made on estimate basis but such estimate should be reasonable and cannot be arbitrary. In the instant case, there is not even an iota of evidence to show that the assessee, in his capacity as elder brother, incurred the whole expenditure on the occasion of marriage. On the contrary, as per the admission of the CIT(A), the other brothers have also taken part in the marriage celebration by giving a helping hand and their books showed withdrawals towards marriage expenses totalling Rs. 20,000. The CIT(A) 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 AO 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 unable to uphold the addition sustained by the CIT(A). The circumstances show that the probabilities are more in favour of inferring that the marriage expenditure was shared by the younger brother who was married and also other brothers apart from the assessee. Considering the overall circumstances and also in the light of the fact that the assessee offered gold jewellery worth Rs. 4,30,283 to tax in 132(4) proceedings, we are of the opinion that the addition deserves to be deleted.
11. The facts of the case concerning the asst. yr. 1987-88 revolve in a narrow compass. The only issue before us pertains to the addition of Rs. 3,750 made on account of deposits in saving bank accounts of the minors by treating the same as income from undisclosed sources. The minor sons of the assessee maintained bank accounts and during the previous year relevant to the assessment under consideration, additional deposit was made in the savings bank account to the tune of Rs. 3,750 in all. The AO held that the deposit money was sourced by the assessee and, therefore, added the same as the undisclosed income of the assessee. Before the CIT(A), it was contended that the deposits had come from the minor children and out of their declared money. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee raised a different plea before the AO, whereas at the first appellate stage a new contention was raised, i.e., the deposits were out of withdrawals of the family. She, therefore, did not take cognizance of the alternative plea. She also rejected the original plea on the ground that there was no supporting evidence to prove the claim. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.
12. The learned counsel submitted that the minor children are regularly assessed to tax and the deposits in their savings bank accounts are incorporated in their respective capital account. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is no evidence to show that the money to deposit the amount was available with the minors.
13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. There is no evidence before us to suggest that the minors have their own funds to deposit the impugned amount. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee and uphold the order of the CIT(A).
14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1985-86 is allowed, while his appeal for the asst. yr. 1987-88 is dismissed.