Sohan Lal Sharma, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 120/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 12020114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH CHANDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: DR RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Business income; Corroborative evidences; Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69; 132; 2; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.120 TO 126/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2009-10 SHRI SOHAN LAL SHARMA, DCIT, FLAT NO. 90, KARGIL APARTMENTS, CIRCLE-26 (1), SECTOR-18, DWARKA, N. DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AWWPS AWWPS AWWPS AWWPS- -- -1200 1200 1200 1200- -- -J JJ J APPELLANT BY : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA, CIT-DR. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS A BUNCH OF SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST SEPARATE CIT(A)S ORDER ALL DATED 24.10.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-10. ALL IMPUGNED ORDERS WERE PA SSED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A /U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE GROUNDS OF A PPEALS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SEVEN APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 153A /143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS NONE O F THE ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 2 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1)(A)(B) AND (C ) ARE APPLIC ABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .23,38,396/- ON WRONG AND INFIRM INTERPRETATION OF FACTS. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GRO UND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE AND OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004- -- -05: 05: 05: 05: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 153A /143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS NONE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1)(A)(B) AND (C ) ARE APPLIC ABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GRO UND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE AND OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005- -- -06: 06: 06: 06: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 153A /143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS NONE O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1)(A)(B) AND (C ) ARE APPLIC ABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 3 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .1,63,720/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GRO UND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE AND OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006- -- -07: 07: 07: 07: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 153A /143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS NONE O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1)(A)(B) AND (C ) ARE APPLIC ABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .1,63,720/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GRO UND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE AND OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007- -- -08: 08: 08: 08: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 153A /143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS NONE O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1)(A)(B) AND (C ) ARE APPLIC ABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 4 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .1,94,130/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE AND OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008- -- -09: 09: 09: 09: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 153A /143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS NONE O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1)(A)(B) AND (C ) ARE APPLIC ABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .1,94,130/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 4. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BUSINESS INCOME ON ESTIMATED BASIS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE AND OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009- -- -10: 10: 10: 10: ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 5 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEE ORDER U/S 153A /143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS NONE O F THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(1)(A)(B) AND (C ) ARE APPLIC ABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .1,96,664/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 4. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF ` .3,06,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BUSINESS INCOME ON ESTIMATED BASIS. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/AMEND ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL BEFORE AND OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S 13 2 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 21.7.2008 AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSE SSEE AT FLAT NO.90, KARGIL APARTMENTS, SECTOR-18, DWARKA, NEW DEL HI. THE SEARCH WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. TARUNA SHARMA. IN VIEW OF THE SEARCH NOTICES UNDER SUB SECTION(1)(A) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS ASKED TO FI LE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SEVEN ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDING SIX ASSESSMENT YEA RS RELATING TO YEARS PRECEDING THE YEAR OF SEARCH AND ON E FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH TOOK PLACE AND IN COMPLIANCE THE ASSESSEE F ILED RETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF ` .46,800/-, ` .49,120/-, ` .52,500/-, ` .1,05,698/-, ` .1,34,580/-, ` .1,34,555/- AND ` .1,81,855/- RESPECTIVELY FOR ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 6 THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2003 HAD D ECLARED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO ` .23,38,396/- CONSISTING OF JEWELLERY, INVESTMENTS, LOANS AND ADVANCES, SUNDRY DEPOSITS, CASH AND BANK BALANC ES ETC. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED TO PROVE AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURC E OF THESE INVESTMENTS AND IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAD KEPT HER PART OF CAPITAL IN THE FORM OF LOANS AND ADVANCES, INVESTMENT AND JEWELLERY ETC. AND PART OF THE CAPITAL HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE CURRENT ASSETS ALONGWIT H SOME OBLIGATION SHOWN IN THE CURRENT LIABILITIES HEADS. THE LOANS AND ADVANCES HAS BEEN MADE FROM AND INVESTMENTS ARE BELONGI NG TO FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT R EADILY AVAILABLE TO PRODUCE BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF DUE TO TIM E GAP AND PAUCITY OF TIME. IN SUPPORT OF THE STATEMENT OF AFFA IRS AS ON 31.3.2002 SHOWING THE OPENING BALANCE IS SUBMITTED. TH E LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE STILL OUTSTANDING TILL DATE IN THE BO OKS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT AS THE ASSESSEE H AD KEPT THE SAID INVESTMENTS FOR THE LONG TERM PURPOSE, HE NCE MERELY EARNING THE MAXIMUM INCOME ON THIS INVESTMENT IS NOT THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE, RATHER THE SAFETY IS THE MAIN CRITERIA FOR SUCH INVESTMENT. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HELD THAT ASSESSEE DID N OT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO DATES AND YEARS I N WHICH THE INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ` .23,38,396/- AS HIS UNEXPLAINED ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 7 INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND MAD E ADDITION THEREOF. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE PHOTO COPY OF A DIARY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT FOR THE PERIOD 1. 11.2007 TO 19.7.2008 THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET INCOME AT THE END OF EACH MONTH OUT OF WHICH THE INCOME WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED AMONG THREE PERSONS NAMELY SHRI JAGDISH, SHRI BHUWAN AND THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE LETTER DAT ED 13.12.2010 TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE INCOME FROM THE SAID FIRM SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF INCOME DISTRIBUTED IN EACH MONTH IN WHICH THE INCOME VARIED FROM ` .23,600/- TO ` .1,12,700/- FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER, 2007 TO JUNE, 2008. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY SUB MITTED THAT HE WAS PROPRIETOR OF THE FIRM M/S GANESH DOCUMENTS AND PAYMENT TO OTHER TWO PERSONS WAS MADE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING TO PR OCURE WORK THROUGH THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE AVERA GE INCOME FOR THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 2007 TO JULY 2008 @ ` .85,000/- PER MONTH AND ARRIVED AT AN ANNUAL FIGURE OF ` .10,20,000/-. OUT OF WHICH HE ATTRIBUTED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` .3,06,000/-. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE INCOME IN THE YEAR 2008-0 9 HE CALCULATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT ` .2,40,000/- AND THEREFORE MADE AN ADDITION THEREOF. 5. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AGAI N ESTIMATED THE INCOME AT ` .2,40,000/- ON THE SAME BASIS AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND MADE ADDITION THEREOF. FURT HER ADDITION OF ` .4,20,000/- WAS MADE IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT IN PLOT FOR A CONSIDERATION OF ` .4,20,000/- WHICH WAS SOLD FOR ` .5,60,000/- IN THE YEAR 2005. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS OF ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 8 ` .4,20,000/- WHICH HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AND THEREFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION. 6. DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE BUSINESS INCOME AT ` .3,00,000/- AND ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF ` .1,63,720/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED HOUSEH OLD DRAWINGS OF ` .16,280/- ONLY WHEREAS LOOKING AT THE STATUS OF ASSESSEE AND INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS COMPANIES IT WAS ESTIMATED TO BE AT ` .1,80,000/- AND THEREFORE THE DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED T O THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSE SSEE HAD SOLD SOME PROPERTY WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY HIM IN T HE YEAR 2003 THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ` .1,40,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 7. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A N ADDITION OF ` .1,63,720/.- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS AND ` .3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS INCOME EARNED BY HI M. 8. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMAT ED THE HOUSE WITHDRAWALS OF ` .2,16,000/- AND MADE AN ADDITION OF ` .,1,94,130/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESTIMA TED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND DECLARED HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS. SIMILARLY, AN ADDITION OF ` .3,00,000/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED BUSINESS IN COME. 9. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, SIMILAR ADDITION OF ` .1,91,250/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS AND ` .3,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 9 10. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS WAS MADE AT ` .1,96,664/- WHEREAS THE BUSINESS INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT ` .3,06,000/-. 11. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION OF ` .23,38,396/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE OF THE ASSE SSEE TO PROVE THE VERACITY OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3. 2003. HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ADDITIONS OF ` .2,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF BUSINESS INCOME, THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AND RESTRICTED THE BUSINESS INCOME TO ` .46,800/- AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153A. 12. IN THE YEAR 2004-05, THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ESTIMATION OF BUSINESS INCOME OF ` .2,40,000/- AND ACCEPTED THE BUSINESS INCOME DECLARED AT ` .49,120/-. FURTHER HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` .4,20,000/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PLOT. 13. AS REGARDS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE LD CIT(A) DE LETED THE ESTIMATION OF BUSINESS INCOME OAT ` .3,00,000/- AND ACCEPTED THE BUSINESS INCOME OF ` .52,500/- AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN OF ` .1,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PLOT WAS SUSTAINED. 14. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE LD CIT(A) AGAIN DELE TED THE ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME OF ` .3,00,000/- AND ACCEPTED THE BUSINESS INCOME OF ` .1,05,698/- AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF ` .1,63,720/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS. ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 10 15. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE LD CIT(A) AGAIN DEL ETED THE ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME OF ` .3,00,000/- AND ACCEPTED BY THE BUSINESS INCOME OF ` .1,34,580/- AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF ` .1,94,130/- WAS UPHELD. 16. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AMOUNTING TO ` .3,00,000/- AGAINST ` .1,345,555/- AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AND SIMILARLY UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD DRAWINGS AMOUNTING TO ` .1,91,250/-. 17. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE LD CIT(A) UPHELD T HE ESTIMATION OF BUSINESS INCOME AT ` .3,06,000/- AGAINST ` .1,81,855/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION OF ` .1,96,664/- WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS. 18. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ALL YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 19. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS NOT BEING PRESSED AND FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006-0-7 AND 2007-08 T HERE IS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE COMMON ISSUE OF ESTIM ATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOWER WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOL D EXPENSES AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 BESIDES THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOWER HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER AGGRIEVED WITH THE ESTIM ATION OF BUSINESS INCOME IN THESE TWO YEARS. COMMENTING UPON ASSE SSMENT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAD ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 11 MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS AS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2003 WHICH WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN V IEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE ASSETS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACQU IRED IN A SINGLE YEAR. 20. FURTHER ARGUING FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT LD CIT(A)S ACTION ON CONFIRMING THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF ALL ASSE TS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS ALL ASSETS WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EAR LIER YEARS. IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BO OK PAGE 102 & 103 WHEREIN COPY OF LETTER WRITTEN BY LD AR OF ASSESSEE TO ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PLACED IN WHICH THE LD AR HAD SUBMITTED THAT INV ESTMENTS WERE BELONGING TO EARLIER YEARS.. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO IN VITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 104 WHEREIN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 3 1.3.2002 WAS PLACED AND FURTHER WE WERE TAKEN TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 4 WHERE A STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2003 WAS PLACED. OUR AT TENTION WAS INVITED TO JEWELLERY AND INVESTMENT AND LOANS AND ADV ANCES ACCOUNT AS APPEARING AT THE SAME FIGURE AS ON 31.3.2002 & 31.3.2 003 AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSETS BELONGED TO EARLIER YEARS INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN SUPPOR T OF HIS ARGUMENT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAG E 5 & 6 WHERE COPIES OF BILLS OF JEWLLERY DATED 19.8.2001 AND 27.5. 2001 WAS PLACED AND SIMILARLY OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGES 7 TO 23 WHEREIN THE DETAIL OF INVESTMENT ALONG WITH CONFIRMA TION FROM PERSONS WITH WHOM INVESTMENTS WERE MADE WAS PLACED. WE WERE AL SO TAKEN TO PAGES 24 TO 48 WHEREIN DETAIL OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AS ON 31.3.2003 ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION FROM PERSONS TO WHOM THESE WE RE MADE WAS PLACED. SIMILARLY WE WERE TAKEN TO PAGE 112 ONWARDS WHEREIN THE BREAK UP OF LOANS AND ADVANCES AS ON 31.3.2000 ALONG WITH THEIR CONFIRMATION WAS PLACED. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVIT ED TO PAPER BOOK ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 12 PAGES 173 TO 176 WHEREIN COPY OF REMAND REPORT WAS P LACED AND FURTHER TO PAGE 177 TO 178 WHERE A REPLY TO REMAND REPORT WAS PLACED. IN VIEW OF THE REPLY TO REMAND REPORT, THE LD AR SUB MITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT THAT I T WAS DIFFICULT TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF CLAIMS OF ASSESSEE WERE NOT COR RECT AS ALL MATERIAL WAS ALREADY FILED WITH ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 21. REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD WITH DRAWALS THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS IN A MECHANICAL MA NNER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE IDENTICAL WORDING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THESE YEARS. THE LD AR RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. RAJ KUMAR JAIN V. ACIT 50 ITD 1 (TM) (KOL.) 2. SHYAM LATA KAUSHIKJ V. ACIT 114 TTJ 940 (DEL.). 3. BAJRANG LAL BANSAL V. DCIT 94 TTJ 107. 22. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING SEARCH OPERATION NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND THEREFORE ADDIT IONS IN THE YEARS WHERE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED CANNOT BE MADE. RELIA NCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. 137 ITD 287 (MUM.) (SB) IN THE CASE OF ALCARGO GLOBA L LOGISTIC (P) LTD. 2. 28 TAXMANN 328 IN THE CASE OF GURINDER SINGH BAWA V. DCIT (BOM.). 3. 28 TAXMANN 246 IN THE CASE OF PRATIBHA INDUSTRIES LTD. ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 13 23. ARGUING FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10, T HE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT IN BOTH THE YEARS, THE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS MADE AS WELL AS ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF ESTIMATION OF BUSINESS INCOME WAS MADE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING AS BOTH ADDITI ONS CANNOT BE MADE SIMULTANEOUSLY. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLAC ED IN THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. 100 ITD 301 (INDORE) IN THE CASE OF EAGLE BIOTEC H LTD. V. ACIT 1. 52 TTJ 21 (DEL.). IN THE CASE OF RAM LUBHIYA V. ACIT 2. 149 ITR 127 (MAD.). IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KSM GURUSWA MY NADAR & SONS. 24. THE LD DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE STATEMENT O F AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2002 AND IN THIS RESPECT HE READ FROM PARA 4.7 OF LD CIT(A)S ORDER AND ARGUED THAT STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS SU BMITTED BEFORE LD CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS AS ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURNS FOR EARLIER YEARS AND FU RTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR EARLIER YEARS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO ASSESSING OFFICER OR LD CIT(A). THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS IN EARLIER YEARS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS WAS JUSTIFIED. REGARDING ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT WITHDRAWALS WERE TOO LOW AND THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF SURROUNDIN G CIRCUMSTANCES LD ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES APPRO XIMATELY AND FURTHER ARGUED THAT FOR MAKING ADDITION THERE I S NO REQUIREMENT OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL U/S 153A AND RELIANCE IN SUPP ORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. MITAL ICE & COLD STORAGE V. CIT 25 TAXMANN 1. ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 14 2. SHIVNATH RAI HARNARAIN (INDIA) LTD., V. DCIT (NEW DELHI) 117 ITD 74. 25. REGARDING TELESCOPING THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT IN COME WAS ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF A DIARY FOUND DURING SEARCH AND LD AR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY PLEA OR GROUND BEFORE LD CIT(A) FOR T ELESCOPING AND BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT ALSO NO SUCH GROUND HAS BEEN TAKE N AND THEREFORE THE PLEA OF THE LD AR FOR TELESCOPING HAS TO BE REJEC TED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE SAME MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 26. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE W AS A DEED WRITER AND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF LD DR THAT BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS WERE NOT PRODUCED DOES NOT HOLD ANY FORCE. 27. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE SEVEN YEARS AR E SIMILAR ON WHICH THE LD AR HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY ARGUMENT. THEREFORE, THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS IN ALL APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE L D AR ALSO DID NOT PRESS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND HENC E THE SAME IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.3 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS AGA INST SUSTAINING OF ADDITION OF ` .23,38,396/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS FURTHE R CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE OF HIS INCOME OR SOURCES FOR PURCHASING THE ASSETS IN DIFFERENT YEARS. THE LD AR HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/CONFI RMATIONS IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE WERE ACQUIRED IN EARLIER YEARS. THE LD CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F AILED TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF ` .23,38,396/-, THEREFORE, A FURTHER ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 15 OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AGAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 29.9.2011 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS RELATING TO RETURN O F INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND ALL SUPPORTING D OCUMENTS TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF INVESTMENT. IN REPLY, THE LD AR THROUGH LETTER DATED 10.10.2011 HAD SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND FURTHER COPY OF BANK ACCOUNTS WAS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO LONG TIME GAP. THE LD AR OF T HE ASSESSEE DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS WAS AGAIN DIRECTED TO FILE GIFT DE ED IF ANY FROM FATHER OF ASSESSEE AND BANK STATEMENTS AND INCOME TAX RE TURNS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REPLY. IN REP LY TO REMAND REPORT, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL QUERIES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPLIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALREADY ON THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THESE REPLIES WERE GIVEN BY THE A PPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF AND THEREFORE IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDING THAT IT WAS DIFFICUL T TO VERIFY THE CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION SHOULD NOT BE A CCEPTED AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING WRONG OR MISSING FROM THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE ENTIRE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENT IN EARLIER YEARS IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATIONS/EVIDENCES F ROM THIRD PARTIES WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT CONSIDER AS ASSESSEE WAS N OT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE THIRD PARTY EVIDENCES FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED TO DIRECT ASSESSEE TO FILE PROOFS OF INCOME TA X RETURNS OF EARLIER YEARS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ACQUIRING ASSETS ION EAR LIER YEARS AND MADE ADDITIONS BECAUSE OF NON COMPLIANCE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED SPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT FIND A NY DEFECT IN THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, W E SET ASIDE ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 16 THE CASE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDIC ATION WHO ON THE BASIS OF ANY ENQUIRIES FROM THIRD PARTIES IN RESPECT O F THEIR CONFIRMATIONS MAY ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION OF ADDITI ON IF ANY U/S 69 OF THE ACT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY WILL BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 28. AS REGARDS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 TO 2007-08, 2008- 09 & 2009-10 THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF LOWER HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS. THE LD AR HAS ARGUED THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOWER HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS CANNOT BE MADE U/ S 153A OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENT WAS SEIZED DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE LD AR HAD RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT WHERE DURING SEARCH P ROCEEDINGS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT IS RECOVERED, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE YEARS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. WE FIND FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE BEFORE LD CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 179, 196, 213 & 231 THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INC OME U/S 139 OF THE ACT IN THESE YEARS AND HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME ONLY IN RESPONSE OF NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE QUESTIO N OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THESE YEARS DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL A S THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 AND THEREFORE THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD AR DO NOT APPLY TO TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THESE CASES AS IN THOSE CASES THE RETURNS W ERE FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 -04 WAS ALSO NOT FILED U/S 139 AS IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 179. SIMILARLY RETURNS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 WERE ALSO NOT FILED U/S 139. ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 17 29. REGARDING MERITS OF THE CASES REGARDING ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF LOWER HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS, WE FEEL THAT THERE IS NO OTH ER YARD STICK TO MEASURE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF A PERSON OTHER THAN ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT PERSON WITH RESPECT TO SI ZE OF THE FAMILY, SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN, ASSETS OWNED BY THAT PE RSON AND OTHER SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMA TED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF ` .15,000/- P.M. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & 2006-07 AND ` .18,000/- P.M. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 & 2008-09 AND FURTHER ` .20,000/- P.M. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHICH HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED ON A VERY REASONABLE BASIS KEEPING IN VI EW THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD TWO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN AND HAD REASO NABLE INVESTMENTS IN ASSETS. THE CASE LAW OF RAJ KUMAR JAIN V. ACIT 50 ITD1 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES AS IN THAT CASE, THE FIGURE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF ASSESSEE FOR EARLIER YEARS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND DEPARTM ENT HAD ACCEPTED THAT FIGURE IN EARLIER YEARS THEREFORE IT W AS HELD IN THAT CASE THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL COULD NOT BE ESTIMATED WITHOUT CONSIDERING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN EARLIER YEAR S. IN THE OTHER CASE LAW OF SHRI G.S. BHATIA 59 TTJ 91 RELIED UPON B Y LD AR THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS ESTABLISHED WIT H EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS ONLY THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD INCURRED ALL THE HOUSEHO LD EXPENSES, REVENUE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE DEEMING PRO VISION OF SECTION 69A AND WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, LD AR DID NOT BRI NG TO OUR NOTICE ANY DRAWINGS MADE BY WIFE OF ASSESSEE FOR CONTRIBUTION T O HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THEREFORE THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY LD AR DO NOT HOLD FORCE AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE S ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS, W E UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY LD CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF LOWER HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE GROUND NO.3 ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 18 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007 -08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 ARE DISMISSED. 30. AS REGARDS THE ARGUMENT OF LD AR REGARDING BENEFI T OF TELESCOPING TO BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 AND 2009-10, WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED BUSI NESS INCOME AS WELL AS THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THESE TWO YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONTESTED ON THE GROUND OF BENEFIT OF TELESCO PING BEFORE LD CIT(A) NOR ANY GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE US BUT W E STILL FEEL THAT ON THE BASIS OF EQUITY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE GIVEN BE NEFIT OF TELESCOPING AS THE UNDECLARED ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME CAN ALWAYS BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR MEETING UNDECLARED HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INVESTED SUCH INCOM E OR PART OF SUCH INCOME IN SOME NEW ASSETS. IN THE PRESENT CASES ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FILED STATEMENT OF ASSETS AS ON 31.3.2007, 31.3.20 08 & 31.3.2009, THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION A S TO WHETHER ANY PART OF ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME BESIDES USED FOR UNDECLA RED HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS WAS USED FOR CREATING FURTHER ASSETS. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION WHO ON THE BASIS OF FURTHER INFORMATION FROM ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ASSETS AS ON 31.3.2007, 31.3. 2008 & 31.3.2009 CAN ARRIVE AT THE AMOUNT OF BENEFIT OF TE LESCOPING TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IF ANY ON THE BASIS OF INCREASE IN NET ASSETS VIZ-A- VIZ ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME AND HOUSEHOLD DRAWINGS IN THESE YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUND NO.4 IN APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 31. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-004 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS APPEALS F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 ARE DISMISSED . APPEAL FOR ITA NO120 TO 126/DEL/2012 19 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & 2009-10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 32. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV ) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 12.11.2013. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 23.10.2013 DATE OF DICTATION 6.11.2013 DATE OF TYPING 6.11.2013 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.