Sri.K.Govindapillai, Kollam vs Assessee

1 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before Shri N.R.S. Ganesan (JM) and Shri Chandra Poojari (AM)

I.T.A No. 57 to 63/Coch/2013 (Assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10)

Shri K Govinda Pillai vs Dy.CIT, Cent.Cir Santhi Bhavan Kollam Thazhamel, Anchal Kollam PAN : ADCPP1879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by : Shri T.M. Sreedharan Nair, Ld.Sr Counsel Respondent by : Shri Latha V Kumar

Date of hearing : 09-12-2014 Date of pronouncement : 09-01-2015

ORDER

Per N.R.S. Ganesan (JM)

All the appeals of the assessee are directed against the respective

orders of the CIT(A)-III, Kochi all dated 26-11-2012 for the assessment

years 2003-04 to 2009-10. Since common issues arise for consideration in

all these appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this

common order.

2

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

2. The first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of office

expenses.

3. Shri T.M. Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel for the assessee

submitted that the assessing officer restricted the office expenses to 40%

of the gross receipts from document writing. According to the ld.senior

counsel, the assessee is a licensed document writer. The assessee has to

maintain staff assistants to write the document apart from incurring

expenditure in electricity charges, printing of stationery, travelling etc. The

assessee has also paid bonus to employees employed by him. According

to the ld.senior counsel, since the payments made by the assessee

towards expenditure is not in dispute, the same has to be allowed,

therefore, the CIT(A) is not justified in restricting the claim of the assessee

to 40% of the gross receipts.

4. On the contrary, Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that the

assessee is a document writer and stamp vendor in Anchal town. A

search was conducted u/s 132 of the Act at the residential premises of the

assessee and simultaneously survey was also conducted at the office

premises of the assessee at Market Junction, Anchal. According to the

ld.DR, several incriminating materials were found during the course of

search and survey operations. The assessee is not maintaining any books 3 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

of account. Before the search, according to the ld.DR the assessee filed

return of income for the assessment year 2003-04 disclosing total income

of Rs.91,010. However, after the search, consequent to the notice issued

u/s 153A the assessee declared a total income of Rs.1,32,120 for

assessment year 2003-04. According to the ld.DR, the assessee claimed

nearly 60% of the gross receipts as expenses. In the absence of any

materials, according to the ld.DR, the assessing officer restricted the

expenses at 40% of the total receipts. The ld.DR further submitted that

during the appellate proceedings also, the assessee has not filed any

details supporting the expenditure claimed to be incurred, therefore, the

CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition.

5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also

perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee

engaged himself in drafting documents and sale of stamps (both judicial

and non judicial). The assessee is receiving fees for drafting the

documents and also receiving commission on sale of stamps. No doubt,

the assessee has to employee some personnel for carrying out his

professional duties. However, claiming 60% of the total receipts as

expenditure without furnishing any details may not be correct. This

Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee is expected to

maintain records for writing the documents and sale of stamp papers. 4

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

Therefore, the total receipt on document writing and sale of stamp papers

could be ascertained only if the assessee is maintaining proper records.

Though the commission on sale of stamps can be ascertained from the

government / governmental agency from whom the assessee bought

stamp papers, but the fees for writing documents can only be ascertained

from the material / documents are maintained by the assessee. Similarly

for the expenditure incurred by the assessee, the assessee has to produce

books and vouchers. Without maintaining any books or record, the

assessee is claiming 60% as expenditure. This Tribunal is of the

considered opinion that in the absence of any material available on record,

inflation of expenditure cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the assessing

officer has rightly restricted the expenditure to 40% of the gross receipts.

The CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the same. Therefore, this Tribunal do not

find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same

is confirmed for all the assessment years under appeals.

6. The next ground of appeal is with regard to opening cash balance.

7. Shri T.M. Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel for the assessee

submitted that the assessee has filed detailed cash flow statement before

the assessing officer. For the assessment year 2003-04, the assessee

has shown a sum of Rs.5 lakhs as opening cash balance including cash 5 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

balance of Rs.66,369. According to the ld.senior counsel, the effective

cash balance was Rs.4,33,655. The assessee has also received

agricultural income apart from document writing. According to the ld.senior

counsel, the total professional and agricultural income for the financial year

ending 31-03-2002 was Rs.1.5 lakhs. The balance Rs.2.83 lakhs was

from accumulated savings of the assessee and his wife. Referring to the

assessment order, the ld.senior counsel submitted that the assessing

officer disallowed the entire opening cash balance and worked out a

deficiency of Rs.3,51,450. According to the ld.senior counsel, the

investment and availability of funds would show that the assessee had a

reasonable income from document writing, stamp vending, agricultural and

rental income. The ld. senior counsel further submitted that the

assessee's wife also had rental income and agricultural income.

Therefore, the assessing officer is not justified in making addition of

Rs.3,51,450.

8. On the contrary, Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that the

assessee has disclosed Rs.5 lakhs as opening cash balance in the cash

flow statement. The assessee could not substantiate the opening cash

balance during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has also

claimed an amount of Rs.66,369 in the bank account as cash available in 6 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

hand. The CIT(A) found that the assessee could have kept Rs.1 lakh in

hand. Accordingly, he restricted the disallowance at Rs. 3,33,631.

9. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also

perused the material available on record. The assessee claimed Rs.5

lakhs as opening cash balance in the cash flow statement filed before the

assessing officer. The assessee himself claims that this includes an

amount of Rs.66,369 in the bank account. Though the assessee claims

that a sum of Rs.2.83 lakhs was from accumulated savings, no material is

available on record to suggest that the assessee has no accumulated

savings. The assessee being a stamp vendor has to purchase the stamps

from the state government or from the treasury maintained by the state

government. Therefore, he has to naturally maintain books of account. It

is unfortunate that the assessee, even though engages in purchase and

sale of stamps, did not maintain any proper books of account. In such

circumstances, the claim of the assessee regarding the opening cash

balance to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs may not be justified. The CIT(A),

however, has accepted the plea of the assessee to the extent of Rs.1

lakhs and confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.3,33,631. This

Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority.

Accordingly, the same is confirmed.

7

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

10. The next ground of appeal is with regard to agricultural income.

11. Shri T.M. Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel submitted that no material

was found during the course of search operation. The assessing officer

rejected the claim of the assessee regarding the agricultural income shown

in the cash flow statement. According to the ld.senior counsel, the

assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee and held that the

theory of agricultural income is only with an intention to increase the

availability of cash or explaining the investment. According to the ld.senior

counsel, the assessee has declared agricultural income to the extent of

Rs.1,53,251 for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessing officer

failed to give credit for the agricultural income shown in the return of

income.

12. On the contrary, Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that the

assessee is not disclosing any income from agricultural activity. The

assessee claimed before the assessing officer that the agricultural land

stands in the name of his wife, therefore, the agricultural income was not

included in his return of income. When the assessee claims that the

agricultural income belongs to his wife it cannot be included in his total

income and that he cannot take any credit for the agricultural income

earned by his wife. The material found during the course of search 8 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

operation shows the agricultural receipt and not income. According to the

ld.DR, the assessee has not filed any details for the financial year 2002-03

and 2004-05. The assessee could not file any details with regard to

agricultural activities carried on. Referring to the assessment order, the

ld.DR submitted that the agricultural activity was commenced only in the

assessment year 2005-06. Therefore, the assessing officer has rightly

rejected the claim of the assessee.

13. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also

perused the material available on record. The assessee claims that for the

assessment year 2002-03 he disclosed agricultural income to the extent of

Rs.1,53,245. But the assessing officer claims that this was not disclosed

in the return of income filed by the assessee but it was disclosed only in

the cash flow statement. Though no details was furnished for the financial

years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the assessing officer himself says that the

agricultural activity was commenced during the assessment year 2005-06.

It is not known how the agricultural land was acquired by the assessee's

wife. If the assessee purchased the agricultural land by investing his own

funds in the name of his wife, then the income earned from such

agricultural land can also be claimed as part of his total income. But it is

not the case of the assessee that he invested funds for purchasing land in

the name of his wife. The case of the assessee is that the land belongs to 9 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

his wife. Therefore, the agricultural income, if any, may be considered only

in the hands of assessee's wife and not in the hands of the assessee.

However, the income of the assessee's wife can also be considered for

making investment in the joint name of assessee and his wife during the

respective financial years under consideration. The fact remains is that the

assessee does not claim that any agricultural land stands in his name.

Therefore, the agricultural income said to be claimed cannot be part of his

total income and so it cannot be considered for opening cash balance. At

the best, as observed earlier, it can be considered for making joint

investment in the name of his wife and himself, therefore, this Tribunal do

not find any infirmity in the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the

same is confirmed.

14. The next ground of appeal is with regard to household expenses.

15. According to the ld.senior counsel, the assessee estimated the

household expenses at Rs.1 lakhs in the cash flow statement. However,

the assessing officer found that the assessee admitted the household

expenses at Rs. 10,000 per month. According to the ld.senior counsel, the

assessee has admitted only Rs.10,000 during the course of statement

recorded u/s 132(4), therefore, the estimation of household expenses at

Rs.2 lakhs is not justified.

10

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

16. On the contrary, Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that the

assessee's son is studying in engineering college. He admitted that he

had paid Rs.2 lakhs towards capitation fee for admission. The assessee is

also paying tuition fees and meeting other expenses for maintaining family.

On the basis of the statement recorded u/s 132(4), the average

expenditure of the assessee comes to Rs.2 lakhs per annum. Therefore,

the CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition made by the assessing

officer.

17. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also

perused the material available on record. No doubt, while examining the

assessee admitted that his monthly expenditure is Rs.10,000 only. It is

also a fact that the assessee has paid capitation fee for his son for the

engineering admission. The assessee is also continuously paying fees for

his son and incurring other expenditure. Taking into consideration all the

expenditure incurred by the assessee as admitted in the statement

recorded us 132(4) of the Act, this Tribunal is of the considered pinion that

the assessing officer has rightly estimated the household expenses at Rs.2

lakhs per annum. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in the

order of the lower authority; the same is confirmed. 11

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

18. For the assessment year 2005-06, the assesee has taken one more

ground with regard to ottupal.

19. Shri T.M. Sreedhran, the ld.senior counsel submitted that ottupal is a

by-product which was not considered by the assessing officer. According

to the ld.senior counsel, ottupal is one of the by products, which can be

ascertained from the seized records. We heard Smt. Latha V Kumar, the

ld.DR also. The issue regarding ottupal is not arising out of the orders of

the assessing officer and the CIT(A). The assessee has not raised this

ground before the CIT(A) also. Since the lower authority has not

considered this issue, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the

assessee cannot raise this issue before this Tribunal for the first time. This

Tribunal can entertain an appeal only on the facts which are available in

the assessment order. Admittedly, the facts relating to ottupal is not in the

assessment order and the assessee has not raised any issue before the

CIT(A). Therefore, this Tribunal cannot entertain the issue for the first time

at the second appeal stage.

20. The next issue arises for assessment year 2005-06 for consideration

is addition of Rs.12 lakhs from Shri Thomas, an NRI.

12

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

21. Shri T.M. Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel for the assessee

submitted that the assessee has shown a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as loan

received from Shri Thomas in the cash flow statement. According to the

ld.senior counsel, the assessee received cash from the NRE account of

Shri Thomas. The assessee utilized the sum for purchase of property.

The assessing officer, however, made the addition. The CIT(A), however,

deleted the addition only to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs and confirmed the

addition to the extent of Rs.7 lakhs. According to the ld.senior counsel,

since the amount was received from Shri Thomas, a non resident Indian,

the addition is not justified.

22. On the contrary, Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that the

assessee claimed that he purchased teak plantation for Rs.30 lakhs

alongwith Shri Thomas. The assessee claimed before the assessing

officer that Rs.50 lakhs was invested by him and the balances.50 lakhs

was paid by Mr. Thomas directly from his NRE account maintained with

State Bank of Travancore, Anchal. The assessee has also claimed that

the cash withdrew from NRE account on 29-03-2005 was Rs.20 lakhs.

The CIT(A) having found that a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was received from NRE

account, confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.7 lakhs. 13

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

23. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also

perused the material available on record. The CIT(A) found that a sum of

Rs.5 lakhs was transferred from the NRE account of Shri Thomas to the

vendor of the teak plantation. Therefore, the CIT(A) accepted the

genuineness of the transaction to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs. In respect of

the remaining sum of Rs.7 lakhs, though the assessee claims that Mr.

Thomas has withdrawn Rs.20 lakhs from his NRE account maintained with

State Bank of Travancore, Anchal, no material is available on record to

suggest that the amount withdrawn from the bank was paid to the vendor

of the property. In the absence of any evidence on record, the CIT(A)

confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.7 lakhs. In the case of cash

credits, it is for the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction,

creditworthiness of the transaction and the identity of the parties. In this

case, the genuineness of the transaction to the extent of Rs.7 lakhs was

not proved. Therefore, this Tribunal, is of the considered opinion that the

CIT(A) has rightly confirmed the addition. Accordingly, this Tribunal do not

find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the same is confirmed.

24. For the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee has raised a

ground with regard to addition of Rs.2 lakhs as unexplained in addition to

common grounds raised for earlier years.

14

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

25. Shri TM Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel submitted that the

assessee entered into agreement for purchase of property with Mr. Joseph

and gave advance of Rs20 lakhs. While explaining the source for advance

of Rs.20 lakhs, the assessee claimed that the amount received from Shri

Thomas was used for making the advance, therefore, it was not shown in

the cash flow statement. The assessing officer disallowed the claim of the

assessee on the ground that direct nexus for withdrawal of the money from

NRE account of Shri Thomas was not established. According to the

ld.senior counsel, the property itself was purchased by Shri Thomas and it

was registered in his name only. The ld.senior counsel submitted that

Rs.20 lakhs was withdrawn from NRE account of Shri Thomas, therefore,

the assessee has nothing to do with it.

26. On the contrary, Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that

during the course of examination u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee

admitted that the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid in cash and that the

source for making the advance is his own earning apart from receipt of

Rs.2 lakhs from his son. Referring to the claim of the assessee that the

amount was withdrawn from NRE account of Shri Thomas, the ld.DR

submitted that the NRE account does not show any withdrawal of Rs.20

lakhs. According to the ld.DR, Shri Thoms withdrew the amounts ranging

from Rs.50,000 to Rs.4 lakhs on regular intervals. Therefore, the claim of 15 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

the assessee that the amount withdrawn from NRE account of Shri Tomas

was used for giving advance for purchase of property is not correct. As

per the ld.DR, the total withdrawal from the NRE account as on 21-02-

2006 was Rs.9,20,000. Therefore, according to the ld.DR, the assessing

officer has rightly made the addition.

27. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also

perused the material available on record. The CIT(A), after considering

the remand report submitted by the assessing officer found that the

assessee has explained the source for Rs.18 lakhs. The assessing officer

himself admitted in the remand report that there was withdrawal of Rs.18

lakhs from the NRE account of Shri Thomas. Therefore, the CIT(A)

allowed the claim of the assessee to the extent of Rs.18 lakhs. In the

sworn statement, the assessee himself admitted that he received a sum of

Rs.2 lakhs from his son. This statement was not considered by the CIT(A).

A statement recorded in the course of search operation u/s 132(4) of the

Act also forms part of the seized material. Therefore, when the assessee

claims in the statement u/s 132(4) that he received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs,

according to the ld.senior counsel it has to be treated as such as no

contrary evidence is available on record. In this case, there is no contrary

material available on record. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have deleted

the entire addition of Rs.2 lakhs. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion 16 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

that the addition of Rs.2 lakhs sustained by the CIT(A) is not correct in

view of the answer to question No.28 in the statement recorded u/s 132(4)

of the Act from the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is

modified and the assessing officer is directed to delete the entire addition

of Rs.20 lakhs.

28. The next ground of appeal for assessment year 2006-07 relates to

addition of Rs.65,000 found in the bank account.

29. Shri T.M. Sreedharan, the ld.senior counsel for the assessee

submitted that the assessee received Rs.65,000 from his son. The

assessing officer has excluded the receipt of Rs.65,000 from the cash flow

statement. According to the ld.senior counsel, the assessee's son was

employed and he was earning income. Therefore, the amount said to be

received from his son has to be treated as loan in the hands of the

assessee.

30. On the contrary, Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR submitted that

though the assessee claimed that Rs.65,000 was received from his son,

no material was produced to show that the assessee has received the

amount. In the absence of any material evidence, according to the ld.DR,

the claim of the assessee has rightly been rejected by the CIT(A). 17

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

31. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also

perused the material available on record. The assessee claims that a sum

of Rs.65,000 was received from his son. It is not in dispute that the

assessee's son was earning income. Even during examination the

assessee explained the source for making advances for purchase of

property. He claimed that he has received a sum of Rs.2 lakhs from his

son. No question was asked by the revenue authorities about the source

of receipt from his son. No investigation was made by the authorities and

no material was brought on record to establish that the assessee's son

could not have earned that money. In the absence of any material, this

Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the assessee could have

received Rs.65,000 from his son. Because of close relationship between

father and son no documentary evidence could be expected in view of the

smallness of the amount. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered

opinion that addition of Rs.65,000 said to have been received from the

assessee's son is not justified. Accordingly addition of Rs.65,000 is

deleted.

32. The next ground of appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is with

regard to addition of Rs.93,167 found in the bank account. 18

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

33. We heard Shri T.M. Sridharan, the ld. senior counsel for the

assessee and Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR. The assessing officer

made addition on the ground that no material evidence was produced to

support the contention of the assessee that the assessee has received

Rs.93,167 from his son. As we have discussed earlier for the assessment

year 2006-07, the assessee's son was an earning member of the family

and in view of the close relationship between the father and son no

documentary evidence could have been produced. In the absence of any

evidence on record to show that the assessee's son was not earning any

income, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that rejection of claim of

the assessee that he has received Rs.93,167 from his son may not be

justified. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.93,167 is deleted.

34. The next ground of appeal for assessment year 2007-08 is with

regard to addition of Rs.3,50,000 said to be received from Shri Thomas.

35. We heard Shri T.M. Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel for the

assessee and Smt. Latha V Kumar, the ld.DR.

36. The assessee claimed that he received a loan of Rs.3,50,000 from

Shri Thomas. The assessing officer, after examining the bank account

found that no withdrawal was made from the bank account of Shri Thomas. 19

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

Accordingly, the affidavit said to be filed by Shri Thomas was rejected by

the assessing officer. Though Shri Thomas, by way of an affidavit claims

that he advanced a sum of Rs.3,50,000 to the assessee, he could not

substantiate the availability of funds for lending such amount. The bank

account maintained by Shri Thomas does not show any withdrawal of

Rs.3,50,000 on the date on which the amount was said to be given to the

assessee. In the absence of any material evidence, this Tribunal is of the

considered opinion that Shri Thomas would not have given the said

amount. Accordingly, the addition made to the extent of Rs.3,50,000 is

confirmed.

37. Now coming to the appeal for assessment year 2009-10, apart from

common grounds, the assessee has raised another ground with regard to

cash received from his son to the extent of Rs.2,75,000.

38. We heard Shri TM Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel and Smt. Latha V

Kumar, the ld.DR.

39. The assessee claims that he has received Rs. 7,65,000 from his

son, Shri Anil Govind. However, the assessing officer excluded

Rs.3,65,000 out of Rs.7,65,000. During the proceedings before the

CIT(A), the assessee explained that Rs.4 lakhs was transferred by cheque 20 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

on 13-11-2008. An amount of Rs.90,000 was transferred on 08-04-2008

by way of cheque. The CIT(A) by taking into consideration all these

transactions by way of cheques restricted the addition to the extent of

Rs.2,75,000. In the absence of any material this Tribunal is of the

considered opinion that the CIT(A) has rightly restricted the addition to the

extent of Rs.2,75,000. Therefore, this Tribunal do not find any infirmity in

the order of the lower authority. Accordingly, the same is confirmed.

40. The next ground of appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is with

regard to addition of Rs.1,40,000 towards cash received from assessee's

daughter.

41 We heard Shri TM Sridharan, the ld.senior counsel and Smt. Latha V

Kumar, the ld.DR.

42. The assessee claimed before the lower authorities that he received

a sum of Rs.1,40,000 from his daughter. However, no material is available

on record to suggest that the assessee's daughter was an earning member

of the family. Even during the course of statement recorded u/s 132(4),

the assessee never referred about his daughter. Therefore, the claim of

the assessee that he received Rs.1,40,000 from his daughter is without

any substance. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that 21 ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

the lower authority has rightly made the addition of Rs. 1,40,000.

Accordingly, the same is confirmed.

43. The next ground of appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is with

regard to addition of Rs.1,75,000 as claimed to have been withdrawn from

the HSBC bank account for meeting marriage expenses.

44. The ld.senior counsel submitted that the assessee claimed in the

cash flow statement that a sum of Rs.1,75,000 was received from his son

Shri Anil Govind from his HSBC bank account. According to the ld.senior

counsel, a sum of Rs.1,75,000 was withdrawn from the bank by his son to

meet the marriage expenses in the month of November, 2008. However,

the assessing officer was of the opinion that the total withdrawals from the

bank was only Rs.1,80,000 and that too on 10-12-2008 and 17-12-2008,

which are after the marriage. According to the ld.senior counsel, marriage

expenses would be settled only after the functions are over. Therefore, the

funds were withdrawn after the marriage to settle the expenses. Merely

because the money was withdrawn from the bank account after marriage,

it does not mean that the same could not have been used for marriage

expenses. According to the ld.senior counsel, this amount was used for

setting the marriage expenses.

22

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

45. The contention of the ld.DR is that this amount of Rs.1,80,000 was

withdrawn after the marriage, therefore, the same could not have been

used for marriage purpose. According to the ld.DR, had the withdrawal

was made before the date of marriage then there would have been some

justification in the contention of the assessee.

46. It is a fact that marriage expenses have to be incurred before

marriage and settlement has to be made after marriage. It is in practice in

this part of the country that for arranging the marriage function one has to

pay advances and the full settlement would be made only after marriage

functions are over. This is for the reason that no one could estimate the

expenditure exactly in respect of expenses which have to be incurred. For

example in respect of food and other arrangements, the assessee has to

make advance at the time of booking to the concerned person whereas the

actual settlement would be made only after the marriage. Therefore, this

Tribunal is of the considered opinion that merely because the assessee's

son withdrew the money from bank after the marriage, it does not mean

that the same would not have been used for meeting the marriage

expenses. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the amount

withdrawn after the marriage might have been used for settling the

marriage expenses. Therefore, the addition of Rs.1,75,000 is not justified. 23

ITA No. 57 to 63/Coch/2014

Accordingly, the assessing officer is directed to delete the addition of

Rs.1,75,000.

47. In the result, appeals for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 &

2005-06 are dismissed; and appeals for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-

08 and 2009-10 are partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 09th January, 2015.

Sd/- sd/- (Chandra Poojari) (N.R.S. Ganesan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Cochin, Dt : 09th January, 2015 pk/- copy to:

1. Shri K Govinda Pillai, Shanthi Bhavn, Anchal, Kollam

2. The DCIT, Cent.Cir., Kollam

3. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Kochi

4. The Commissioner of Income-tax(A)-III, Kochi

5. The DR (True copy) By order

Asstt. Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench