SMT. BINA MALPANI, BEAWAR V. ITO, BEAWAR

ITA 1090/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5198 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 32; 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. BINA MALPANI W/O SHRI YOGESH MALPANI PARTNER OF M/S. MALPANI BROS MEWARI BAZAR, BEAWAR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2 BEAWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABHPM2587 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI O.P. BHATEJA, ADDL. CIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14/06/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 /06/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 14-10-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- (1) (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE AUTHORITY BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING LEGITIMATE DEPRECIATION AGGREGATING RS. 4,31,432/- AS UNDER:- BUILDING ON W.D.V. RS. 1778877/- @ RS. 177888/- PLANT AND MACHINERY ON W.D.V. RS. 1690296 @ RS. 253544/- ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 2 . (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AUTHORITY BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT APPELLANT DID NOT OWN PLANT AND MACHINERY AND BUILDING AND NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS A ND AS SUCH CLAIMED WRONG DEPRECIATION THEREON WITHOUT BRINGING POSITIVE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING MANDATORY DEPRECIATION WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY THE OWNERSH IP AND USE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AND BUILDING (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF TH E APPELLANT WHICH WAS MADE PURELY ON CONJECTURE, SURM ISE AND ESTIMATION 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-07-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,27,460/- . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 10-03-2008 AND F IRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 11-09-2008 AND THUS THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(2) ON 30-12-2009. THE AO OBSERVE D THAT A CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,53,544/- ON MACHINERY AND RS. 1,77,888/- ON BUILDING. THE AO MADE DETAILED VERIFICATION IN THIS REGARD. HE OBSERVED THAT PURCHASE OF MACHINERY OF RS. 13.60 LACS WAS S HOWN FROM M/S. UMESH MACHINERY OF DAMAN. THE AO MADE ENQUIRY FROM THIS PARTY AND ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 3 IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THEM THAT MACHINERY OF RS. 13.6 0 LACS WAS SOLD BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE ON 5-03-2003 BUT NO AMOUNT FOR THE SAME HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THEM TILL DATE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT SI MILARLY PURCHASES OF MACHINERY OF RS. 26,62,816/- WAS SHOWN FROM M/S. PA YAL ENTERPRISES OF AHEMDABAD. THE AO MADE ENQUIRY AND FOUND THAT NO SU CH CONCERN EXISTED AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN AHEMDABAD. THE LETT ER SENT BY THE AO AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RETURNED WIT H THE POSTAL REMARKS NOT KNOWN. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN PURCHASES OF CEMENT AND IRON FROM SHREENATH ENTERPR ISES OF BARODA. THIS PARTY WAS ALSO NOT FOUND IN EXISTENCE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE AO THUS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY PURCHA SES FROM THESE THREE PARTIES AND ONLY ARRANGED BILLS FOR CLAIMING BOGUS DEPRECIATION. THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 17-12-2009. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY LETTE R DATED 24-12-2009 ARGUED THAT ENQUIRY HAD BEEN MADE BEHIND THE BACK O F THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PUR CHASES MADE FROM THESE THREE PARTIES AND FINALLY THE AO DISALLOWED D EPRECIATION OF RS. 4,31,132/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 4 2.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OB SERVING AS UNDER:- 5.4 ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED, BUT THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIATI ON, OWNERSHIP OF ASSET BY APPELLANT AND ITS USE FOR BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR HAVE TO BE ESTABLISHED. IN THIS CASE EVEN THE OWNERSHIP OF ASSET HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF DETAILED ENQUIRY MADE BY AO AS MENTIONED AB OVE, ONUS WAS ON APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT MACHINERY WAS PURCHASED BY HER AND THE SAME WAS USED FOR BUSINESS. SIMILARLY PURCHASE OF MATERIAL F OR BUILDING WAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY APPELLANT. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS FOUND THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE EITH ER FOR MACHINERY OR FOR THE BUILDING. THE FACT THAT INVESTMENT PERTAINS TO EARL IER YEARS IS NOT RELEVANT. MOREOVER THE AO HAS NOT DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE INVES TMENT BUT ONLY DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION CLAIMED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT THAT ENQUIRY WAS MADE BEHIND HER BACK IS ALSO NOT FACTUA LLY CORRECT BECAUSE RESULT OF ENQUIRY WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPELLANT BY AO. THE AO NOT ONLY ISSUED LETTER TO THE APPELLANT, BUT ALSO SENT SUMMONS U/S 131 AT THE BEAWAR AND JALGAON ADDRESS OF APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO MAKE COMPLIANCE IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS BEFORE AO. THEREFORE HER CLAIM THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY AO IS ABSURD, TO SAY THE L EAST. 5.5 IN VIEW OF DETAILED DISCUSSION MADE BY AO IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT CAN BE REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT NO INVESTMENT IN P LANT, MACHINERY OR BUILDING WAS MADE BY APPELLANT. ONLY BILLS WERE ARR ANGED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, TO WHOM NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE SAME . ON THE BASIS OF THESE BOGUS BILLS, APPELLANT CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,31,432 WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY AO, BECAUSE EVEN THE EXISTENC E OF SUCH ASSETS HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT. ADDITION OF RS. 4,31,432 IS IN ORDER AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 4 IS THUS DISMISSED. 2.3 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE ME AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE AMOU NT OF RS. 4,31,432/- DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRAYED THA T THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES RAISED BEFORE THE BENCH MAY KINDLY BE CON SIDERED FOR DISPOSAL ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 5 OF THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE WRITT EN SUBMISSION TO THIS EFFECT. 2.4 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 AS TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR DEC IDING THE APPEAL FIRST. IN THE APPLICATION DATED 15-09-2014, THE ASSESSEE F ILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADMISSION OF THE SA ME AS UNDER. (1) COPY OF SITE PLAN OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDING OF AGG RESSIVE POLYWEAVE SITUATED AT PLOT NO. 5, GATE NO. 123, MAN IYAR ESTATE, JALGAON MEASURING 920.74 SQ. MTR (2) COPY OF REGISTRATION AS SMALL SCALE INDUSTRIES ISSUED BY DISTRICT CENTRE, JALGAON DATED 4-12-2000. (3) COPY OF CONSENT CERTIFICATE FROM MAHARASHTRA PO LLUTION CONTROL BOARD, JALGAON REGARDING MANUFACTURING OF P .P. WOVEN MATS. (4) COPY OF LEASE AGREEMENT OF LAND DATED 22-09-20 00 (5) COPY OF AGREEMENT WITH MANIYAR PLAST LTD. JALG AON FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC POWER TO THE AGGRESSIVE POLYWEAV E, JALGAON (6) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14-09-2006 FOR T HE PERIOD FROM 01-04-2003 TO 31-03-2004 PASSED BY SALES TAX O FFICER, JALGAON ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 6 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE EVIDENCES ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THAT LOOKING TO THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE APPEARS NO NECESSITY TO ADMIT AND CONSIDER THESE EVIDENCES IN AS MUCH AS IN MY VIEW THE EVIDENCES ALREADY AVAILABLE ARE SUFFICIENT TO D ISPOSE OFF THE CONCERNED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, I AM NOT INCLINED T O ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE APPL ICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/R 29 OF INCOME-TAX RULES IS REJECTED. 2.5 IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE BASIC CONTENTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM O F DEPRECIATION IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACT UALLY MADE ANY INVESTMENT AND ONLY BOGUS BILLS WERE OBTAINED AND H AVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE DEPR ECIATION OF RS.4,31,432/- ON BUILDING, PLANT & MACHINERY AS SHO WN IN THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2007 PLACED AT PAGE S 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT THE REAL INVESTMENT A ND THEREFORE, THE DEPRECATION SO CLAIMED WAS DISALLOWED. HOWEVER, I F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED JOB RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING OF PLASTIC GRANULES OF RS.6,51,000/-, AS APPEARING IN THE TRADING A/C. COP Y PLACED AT ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK PAGE 46. THE AO HOWEVER, REJECTED THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH RECEIPTS AND FEELING DI SSATISFIED ALSO MADE ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 7 TRADING ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/-. IN THE FIRST APP EAL, THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT PAGE 4 PARA 4.2 AND OBSERVED AS UNDER :- 4.2 AS INTIMATED BY THE APPELLANT, DURING THE YEA R ONLY JOB WORK WAS CARRIED OUT AND TOTAL JOB WORK RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,51,000 WERE DECLARED. NO PURCHASES OR SALE WERE MADE DURING THE YEAR AND OPENING STOCK OF PLASTIC OF 30422 KG WAS ALSO DECLA RED AS CLOSING STOCK. IN SUCH A SITUATION OBSERVATION OF AO THAT N O STOCK REGISTER WAS PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION IS NOT RELEVANT. AO D ID NOT MAKE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY TO PROVE THAT JOB WORK RECEIPTS DECLARED BY APPELLANT ARE NOT CORRECT. NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF APPELLANT. THEREFORE TH ERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145. ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000 IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. GROUN D NO. 2 AND 3 ARE THUS ALLOWED. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ABOVE FINDING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) HAS BECOME FINAL IN ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER CHALLENGE BY THE RE VENUE. THUS, ON ONE HAND, THE REVENUE ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT( A) WHEREBY HE HAS ALREADY QUASHED THE INVOKING OF SEC.145 ACCEPTING T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE IS DISBELIEVING THE BALANCE SH EET PREPARED FOR THE SUBJECTED YEAR BASED ON THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY DOUBTING THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BUILDING, PLANT & MACHINERY AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.24,40,162/- & RS.37,56,214/- RESPECT IVELY. THE AO CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS I.E. WHILE DEALING WITH THE TRADING ADDITION ACCEPTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HOW EVER, WHILE DEALING ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 8 WITH THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, DISBELIEVING THE SA ME SETS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE THE INCOME GENERATED FROM THE USE OF THOSE ASSETS UNDER DISPUTE HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY THE AO, THERE IS NO REASON NOW TO DOUBT THE VERY EXISTENCE AND THE USER OF THE ASSETS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE SUBJECTED ASSETS ARE NOT ONLY OWNED, POSSESSED BUT WERE ALSO USED BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ALLOW HIM THE STATUTORY ALLOWANCE U/S 32 OF THE ACT. IT IS FURTHER NOTED FROM THE PERUSAL OF TRADING AND PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THIS YEAR PLACED AT PAGES AT PAGE 46 OF THE PAPER B OOK WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE PAYMENT OF ELECTR ICITY CHARGES TOTALING TO RS.94,675/-, OUT OF WHICH RS.81,375/- WAS PAID T O M/S MANIYAR PLAST LTD. WHEREAS RS.13,310/- WERE PAID TO MAHARASTRA E LECTRICITY BOARD. COPIES OF ELECTRICITY BILL AND DEBIT NOTES ARE AVAI LABLE IN THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 112 TO 117. SIMILARLY WAGES OF RS.22,270/- WAS ALSO PAID THIS YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH THE JOB WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WERE SUBMITTED WHICH ARE PL ACED ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF THE PLANT & MACHINERY AND OF THE BUILDI NG MATERIAL ETC. TOGETHER WITH THE COPIES OF THE TRANSPORT RECEIPTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSEES PAPER B OOK FROM PAGES 52 TO 95. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FIRST BALANCE SHEET WAS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 9 A.Y.2004-05 WHEN IT CAME IN PRODUCTION AND THEREAFT ER THE BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y.2005-06 & 2006-07 WERE ALSO PREPARED WHICH INCLUDED THE COST OF THE BUILDING AND PLANT & MACHINERY AND THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN THOSE YEARS. CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AND THE DOCU MENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT NOBODY VISITED THE SITE WHE RE THE FACTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED WHICH INDICATES THAT THE AO M ERELY PROCEEDED ON SUSPICION. HE FAILED TO BRING CONTRARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT AFTER A LAPSE OF A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD AND AFT ER THE INSTALLATION AND THE COMMENCEMENT OF PRODUCTION, THE AO MADE ENQUIRY IN THE SUBJECTED YEAR AND MERELY PROCEEDING ON SUSPICION, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. I AM THEREFORE, OF A CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND CONFIR MED BY LD. CIT(A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IN VI EW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS REVERSED ON THIS ISSUE. THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.4,31,432/- I S ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. 3.1 AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 12-05-2009 TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES OF QUANTUM OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF HE R OWN AND HER ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 10 HUSBAND AS WELL AS THE DETAILS OF THE SCHOOLING CHI LDREN. THE SAME WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 02-06-20 09 INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAMILY CONSISTING OF SELF, HER HUSHABN D SHRI YOGESH MALPANI, HER SON SHRI HARSHIT MALPANI AND HER DAUGH TER MISS. KHUSHBU MALPANI. SHE SUBMITTED TO THE AO THAT HER HUSBAND H AS MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 60,000/- FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND SHE HAS MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 5,000/- TOTALING TO RS. 65,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD SPENT MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,96,324/ -ON THE MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER MISS. KHUSHBU MALPANI DURING THE PERIOD UN DER CONSIDERATION AND THIS AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE ACCOUNT OF M /S. KRISHANGOPAL AND SHRIGOPAL & COMPANY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF KUMARI KHUSHBU MALPANI B UT IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM THAT COMPANY ON T HE MARRIAGE OF KUMAR KHUSHBU MALPANI WAS USED AND NO DETAILS WERE PRODUCED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE IS DOING C A WHOSE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES WERE NOT SUBMITTED BUT INFORMED THAT RS. 7 500/- IS DEPOSITED FOR REGISTRATION IN THE INSTITUTE AT NEW DELHI. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED AMOUNTING TO RS . 7,96,342/- WERE INCURRED BY THE DAUGHTER HERSELF IN HER MARRIAGE. T HE AO OBSERVED FROM THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENSES IS INCURRED BY THE DAUGHTER ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 11 WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS IN THE MARRIAGE THE EXPE NSES ARE BORNE BY THE PARENTS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT LOOKING TO THE STAND ARD AND SIZE OF THE FAMILY AND EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN, THE EXPENSES SHOWN RS. 5,000/-IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HENCE, THE AO ISSUED THE SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES AN D THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FROM WHICH THE AO COULD DEDUCE THE ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES ON HOUSE HOLD A ND MARRIAGE OF DAUGHTER AT RS. 1.50 LACS WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.50 L ACS MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.3 ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FR OM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS IT IS FOUND THAT SHRI YOGESH MA LPANI HUSBAND OF PAID LIC PREMIUM OF RS. 38,251/- DURING THE YEAR. H E HAS BUSINESS INTEREST IN VARIOUS CONCERNS SUCH AS MANIYAR PLANT, GANESH TRADERS, MALPANI BROS, AND SHANTI JEWELLERS. THE AP PELLANT BELONGS TO RESPECTABLE MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY MAINTAINING CAR AND OTHER AMENITIES. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE TOTAL DRAWINGS OF RS. 65,000/- FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR ARE GROSSLY INADEQUATE. SIMILARLY, THE EXPLANATION THAT NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON MARRIAGES OF DAUG HTER BY THE PARENTS AND ONLY AMOUNT LYING IN HER CREDIT WAS UTI LIZED FOR THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- IS REASONABLE AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. 5 IS THUS DIS MISSED. ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 12 3.3 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LOOKI NG TO THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF RS. 65,000/- WAS REAS ONABLE. HER SON IS DOING CA COURSE AND GETTING STIPEND OF RS. 750/- P ER MONTH. ALL FAMILY MEMBERS LIVE IN THEIR MAMAS HOUSE. HENCE ELECTRICI TY, WATER, RENT ETC. ARE NOT PAYABLE BY HER. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EXPENSES WHICH WAS INCURRED AND NOT SHOWN BY HER. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND MARRIAGE EXPENSES ARE NOT SUFFICI ENT. IT IS KNOWN THAT APPARENT IS TO BE TAKEN AS REAL UNLESS PROVED OTHER WISE. THE ADDITION WAS MADE SOLELY ON PRESUMPTION, SURMISES AND ESTIMATION WITHOUT GIVING PROPERTY OPPORTUNITY. ON THIS BASIS, NO ADDITION CA N BE SUSTAINED. IT IS PRAYED THAT ESTIMATION ADDITION OF RS. 1.50 LACS MA Y KINDLY BE DELETED. 3.4 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES A ND MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF THE DAUGHTER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED. THUS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. 4.1 THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011 SMT. BINA MALPANI VS. ITO WARD- 2, BEAWAR . 13 5.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 /06/2 016 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 27/06/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT.BINA MALAPANI, BEAWAR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2, BEAWAR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1090/JP/2011) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR