Shobha Ram Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Summary: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘G’, allowed Shobha Ram’s appeal for Assessment Year 2013-14 and deleted an addition of Rs.60,00,000 made under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, towards alleged unexplained expenditure on his daughter’s marriage. The assessee, a salaried government employee with NTPC, Dadri during Financial Year 2012-13, had been reassessed pursuant to a notice issued under Section 148, followed by an ex-parte assessment order under Sections 144/147. The addition was founded on allegations contained in an FIR and a Tax Evasion Petition arising from a matrimonial dispute. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not conducted any independent enquiry from the marriage venue, jewellers, car dealer or any other source to verify whether the assessee had actually incurred the alleged expenditure. Holding that an addition could not be sustained merely on an estimate and unsupported allegations in the FIR and TEP, the Tribunal deleted the entire addition and allowed the appeal. The legal challenge to the reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 was not separately adjudicated in the extracted final reasoning because the appeal succeeded on merits.
Core Issue: The core issue was whether an addition of ₹60,00,000 under Section 69C could be made towards alleged unexplained marriage expenditure merely on the basis of allegations contained in an FIR and Tax Evasion Petition, without bringing any independent material on record to establish that the assessee had actually incurred such expenditure. The assessee also challenged the reopening under Sections 147/148 on the ground that it was based merely on the FIR and TEP without independent application of mind or tangible material.
Facts: The assessee was a salaried Government employee with NTPC, Dadri during FY 2012-13. The assessment for AY 2013-14 was reopened and an ex-parte assessment was ultimately framed under Sections 147/144. The addition of ₹60,00,000 was made on the allegation that the assessee had incurred ₹60 lakh towards the marriage of his daughter. The allegation originated from an FIR and Tax Evasion Petition arising out of a matrimonial dispute. Before the Tribunal, it was specifically contended that there was no evidence showing that the assessee had actually incurred the alleged expenditure. The assessee also relied upon documentary evidence and affidavits which, according to the grounds of appeal, had not been properly appreciated by the CIT(A).
AO/CIT(A) Finding: The addition of ₹60,00,000 under Section 69C was sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee contended before the Tribunal that the addition was based merely on the FIR and TEP, without any independent enquiry or verification, and that the authorities had proceeded on assumptions and presumptions rather than evidence of actual expenditure.
ITAT Finding: The Tribunal found that the FIR and TEP merely contained an allegation that the assessee had spent ₹60,00,000 on his daughter’s marriage. Significantly, the Assessing Officer had not conducted any enquiry from the marriage venue, jewellers, car dealer or any other independent source to establish that the assessee had actually incurred expenditure of ₹60,00,000. The Tribunal therefore held that an addition made on an estimate basis and solely on the basis of the TEP/FIR, without supporting enquiry or material evidence, could not be sustained. The Tribunal accordingly deleted the entire addition.
Outcome: The assessee’s appeal was allowed and the addition of ₹60,00,000 under Section 69C was deleted in full. The Tribunal specifically held that the addition could not survive when it was based only on an FIR and Tax Evasion Petition arising from a matrimonial dispute and was unsupported by any independent enquiry or material evidence.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 18.08.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 27.09.2021 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the A.Y 2013-14.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a salaried govt. employee with NTPC, Dadri during the Financial Year 2012-13 and retired on 28th February 2017 and shift the residence from Gautam Budh Nagar to ancestral village Ranouli Latitpur NTPC Dadri, G. B Nagar. The assessee case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of Income tax Act dated 24.09.2021. The assessee filed its response vide letter dated 30.09.2021. The learned AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144/147 of the Act on dated 27.09.2021. Upon appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us with the following grounds; which reads as under:
1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.60,00,000 made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged unexplained marriage expenditure.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act are bad in law, being based merely on allegations contained in FIR and Tax Evasion Petition without any independent application of mind or tangible material establishing escapement of income.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the Assessing Officer has not brought any material evidence on record to establish that the appellant had actually incurred marriage expenditure of Rs.60,00,000.
4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition which has been made solely on the basis of FIR and Tax Evasion Petition arising out of matrimonial disputes without any independent enquiry or verification.
5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the addition is based on assumptions and presumptions and is therefore unsustainable in law.
6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in rejecting or ignoring the documentary evidences and affidavits filed by the appellant and in confirming the addition without proper appreciation of the material placed on record.
7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the provisions of section 69C are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of proof of actual expenditure.
8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made in violation of the principles of natural justice and without proper consideration of the explanations and evidences furnished by the appellant.
9. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the addition confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is excessive, arbitrary and unjustified.
10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
3. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that addition has been made in the case of the assessee on an estimate basis on account of FIR and Tax Evasion Petition filed against the assessee. FIR and TEP was filed against the assessee, arose out of matrimonial dispute and made an allegation that the assessee had expended an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- on marriage of his daughter. It is submitted that there is no evidence or material brought by the AO on record to show that the assessee had made such expenditure.
4. Per contra, ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and CIT(A).
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the FIR and TEP was filed against the assessee which made an allegation that the assessee has expended Rs.60,00,000/- on the marriage of his daughter. We find that the AO has not made any enquiry from the marriage venue, jewelers, car dealer or any other independent source to establish that the assessee actually incurred expenditure of Rs.60,00,000/-. We, therefore, delete the addition made on estimate basis and only on the basis of TEP/FIR which are not supported by any enquiry or material evidences. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2963/Del/2026 is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.08.2026
