Mr Mahaveerchand, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1049/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8222 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMESH KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C SINGLE MEMBER CASE BEFORE SHRI PRADEEP PARIKH, VICE-PRESIDENT I.T.A. NO.1049 /MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MR. MAHAVEERCHAND C/O S.RAMESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, NO.104, GOVINDAPPA NAICKEN STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. PAN AERPM 9045 K VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-4(2), CHENNAI 34. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.RAMESH KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SRINIVAS O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A), DATED 9.4.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF ` 1,59,028/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INADEQUATE DRAWING. 2. THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL IS IN HIRE PURCHASE BUSI NESS AND RETURNED A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,24,940/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FAMILY BACKGROUND AND THE STANDARD OF LIVING, THE TOTAL DR AWINGS OF ` 90,972/- WERE QUITE INADEQUATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 1,59,028/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME BY OBSERVING THAT THE TOTAL FAMI LY MEMBERS WERE THIRTEEN IN NUMBER AND HENCE THE DRAWI NG COMES TO ` 25,533/- PER MONTH. 2 ITA 1049 /10 3. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL WAS THAT NO DE FECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND AND NO ENQUIRY ABOU T THE FAMILY BACKGROUND OR THE STANDARD OF LIVING WAS MAD E. THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION WAS UNJ USTIFIED. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4. CONSIDERING THE NUMBER OF FAMILY MEMBERS COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS THREE SCHOOL GO ING CHILDREN, DRAWING OF ` 25,533/- PER MONTH APPEARS TO BE INADEQUATE IN A METROPOLITAN CITY LIKE CHENNAI. AT THE SAME TIME, EXPENSES OF NEARLY ` 39,000/- SEEM TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE LIVES IN A JOINT FAMILY. IN MY VIEW, IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ESTIM ATE THE MONTHLY EXPENSES AT ` 30,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 53,604/- IS SUSTAINED. THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF ` 1,05,424/-. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 02-09-2010 . SD/- (PRADEEP PARIKH) VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 2 ND SEPT., 2010 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR