Sh. Suresh Khanna, Ludhiana V. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1018/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73571 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1016,1017 & 1018/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 SURESH KHANNA VS. D.C.I.T. C.C.-I, LUDHI ANA H NO. 3, COUNTRY HOME (WEST) NEAR SOUTH CITY LUDHIANA AHAPK 0939M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI HARI OM ARORA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING 12.3.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.3.2014 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.8.2013 2.8.2013 OF THE LD CIT(A)-I, LUDHIANA. ISSUES ARE C OMMON IN THESE APPEALS AND THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 IN THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUND: 1 THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND, AS SUCH IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2 THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R AND DISMISSING APPELLANTS APPEAL. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,56,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03, (RS. 1,80,000 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND R S.2,10,000 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) CONFIRMED ON ACCOUNT OF L OW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND NOT ON CON CRETE AND ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE ON RECORDS. 3 THAT VARIOUS FACTUAL AND LEGAL CONTENTIONS RAISED HAVE NOT BEEN CONSTRUED PROPERLY, WHICH HAS RESULTED IN ERRONEOUS AND UNTENABLE CONCLUSION. THE ORDERS PASSED EARLIER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 AND 2006-07 HAVE BEEN IGNORED TO BE CONSIDERED AND ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED WRONGLY. 4 THAT THE ORDER IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF TH E CASE. 5 THAT IN ANY CASE ADDITION CONFIRMED IS UNREASONAB LE AND HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. 2 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT A SEA RCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. DURING SEARCH THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES WIFE WAS RECORDED WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACT ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 2.1 WHICH READS AS UNDER: I USED TO GET 10 TO 15 THOUSAND PER MONTH FOR HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES I.E. RATION, SABZI, SERVANT EXPENDITURE ETC. OTHER EXPENSES LIKE FEE OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, ELECTRICITY BILL, TELEPHONE BILLS ARE PAID BY HUSBA ND. TOTAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE MAY BE RS. 42,000/- TO RS. 45,000/- PER MONTH. I AM ALSO MEMBER OF TWO KITTY PARTIES AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2000/- PE R MONTH PAID BY ME. EXCEPT THAT WE ARE NOT MEMBER ANY CLUB AT LUDHIANA. WE HAV E ONE PET DOG LEBRY IN OUR HOUSE WE HAVE TWO VEHICLE ONE IS A CAROLLA CAR AND AN OTH ER IS SWIFT CAR. THESE VEHICLES ARE IN THE NAME OF MY HUSBAND. THERE IS AL SO ONE KINETIC HONDA MOTORCYCLE IN OUR HOUSE. EXCEPT THAT WE DO NOT OWNE D ANY VEHICLE. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT LOOK ING AT THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY AND THE ABOVE NOTED STATEMENT OF ASSESSE ES WIFE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL WERE INADEQUATE. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICERS PREDECESSOR A SUM OF RS. 36,000 WAS OFFERED TO COVER UP SUCH LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. BUT THE SAME SEEMS TO BE INADEQUATE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO ADOPT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 45,000 PER MONTH AS ADMITTED BY ASSESSEES WIFE DURING SEARCH BECAUSE COST OF LI VING IN THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE WAS LOW. IN THIS BACKGROUND HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 20,000 PER MONTH AFTER REDUCIN G THE SUM OF RS. 84,000 DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,56,000/- WAS MADE TOWARDS LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THIS YEAR. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND 2004-05 ADDITION WAS MADE AT RS . 1,80,000/- AND RS. 2,10,000/-. 4 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS MAINLY SUB MITTED THAT ASSESSEES FAMILY CONSISTED OF ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE A ND TWO MINOR CHILDREN WHO WERE STUDYING IN 8 TH AND 3 RD CLASSES RESPECTIVELY. THE 3 ASSESSEE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF ANY CLUB AND HAS NOT U NDERTAKEN ANY FOREIGN TRIP. THEREFORE WITHDRAWAL DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFICIENT. 5 THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THESE SUBMIS SIONS PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY ASSESSEES WIFE AND THEREFORE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 6 BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MAINL Y REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HIMSELF ESTIMATED THE WITHDRAWAL @ RS. 15,000 PM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (COPY OF THAT ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 6 TO 8 OF PAPER BOOK). THE REFORE WITHDRAWAL DECLARED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR BEFORE US WAS SUFFICIENT OR AT BEST REASONABLE ESTIMATE MAY BE MADE. 7 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE S TRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. WE FIND DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 2005-06, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE WITHDRAWAL AT RS. 15,000 PM. THEREFO RE KEEPING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ESTI MATE THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL AT RS. 12,000, 13,000 AND 14,0 00 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPEC TIVELY. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE MADE BY US. 9 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.3.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.3.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 4