Mrs. Taruna Sharma, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 127/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6400 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S MEENA
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : H : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2009-10 TARUNA SHARMA, FLAT NO.90, KARGIL APARTMENTS, SECTOR-18, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. PAN : AEUPT5468D VS. DC IT, CIRCLE 26(1), VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SOMIL AGARWAL, CA & SHRI ROHAN KHARE, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : S HRI R.S. MEENA, CIT, DR ORDER PER BENCH: THIS BATCH OF SEVEN APPEALS IN RELATION TO ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-10 INVOLVES SOME COMMON ISSUES. TH ESE ARE, THEREFORE, DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . 2. THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD . AR. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 3. THE THIRD GROUND IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF AD DITION OF ` 26,83,589/-. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS APROPOS THI S GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO A SEARCH U/S 132 ON 2 1.7.2008. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN FO R THE YEAR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 48,350/-. IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE OF ` 18,50,293/-, UNSECURED LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AT ` 7,50,000/- BESIDES CURRENT LIABILITIES AMOUNTING TO ` 82,396/-. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE FOLLOWING ASSETS:- JEWELLERY ACCOUNT RS. 2,96,300/- INVESTMENT ACCOUNT RS. 8,60,000/- LOANS & ADVANCES RS.12,90,000/- SUNDRY DEPOSITS RS. 2,21,500/- CASH AND BANK RS. 15,789/- TOTAL RS.26,83,589/- ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 3 4. THE AO OBSERVED THAT NO DETAILS OF ASSETS AND LI ABILITIES WERE GIVEN IN THE RETURN FILED AND, FURTHER, THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL AS EARLIER YEARS P RIOR TO SEARCH. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY GENUINENE SS OF CAPITAL, LOANS AND ADVANCES AND INVESTMENTS DECLARED SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE ALONG WITH THE INCOME DECLARED, THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED A LIST OF PERSONS TO WHOM LOANS AND ADVAN CES WERE GIVEN EARLIER ALONG WITH THEIR CONFIRMATIONS, WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO BE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.3.2003. TO VERIFY THE C ORRECTNESS OF INVESTMENT, LOANS AND ADVANCES BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW MODE OF THE PAYMENT ALONG WITH THE DATES ON WHICH SUCH LOANS WERE GIVEN AND ALSO THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH SUCH LOANS WERE GIVEN. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REPLY DATED 22.12.2010 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. THE AO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO SOURCE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE ASSETS AMOUNT ING TO ` 26.83 LACS. ADDITION WAS MADE FOR THE EQUAL AMOUNT U/S 69A OF THE ACT, WHICH CAME TO BE AFFIRMED IN THE FIRST AP PEAL AFTER TAKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO, IN WHICH HE REITERATED H IS EARLIER ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 4 VIEW. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SUSTEN ANCE OF SUCH ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SIMPLE AND PLAIN THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE FILES HIS RETURN FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE O NUS IS ALWAYS ON HIM TO PROVE THE FIGURES OF ASSETS SHOWN IN THE BA LANCE SHEET, BOTH OPENING AS WELL AS CLOSING. THE ARGUMENT THAT OPENING FIGURES SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE EXPLAINED, DOES NOT STAND IN SUCH A SCENARIO. THE FIGURES OF THE OPENING ASSETS AND L IABILITIES ARE DEEMED TO BE EXPLAINED IN NEXT YEAR ONWARDS AND NOT WHEN THE RETURN IS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME. IN SUCH A CASE, IT IS ALWAYS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE OPENING FIGURES TAKEN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IF SUCH FIGURES ARE NOT EXPLAINED, THE ADDIT ION IS RIGHTLY CALLED FOR. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI SOM NATH SHARMA WAS ALSO SU BJECTED TO A SEARCH ACTION UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE APPEALS FILED BY HIM. A COPY OF SU CH ORDER IN ITA NO.120 TO 126/DEL/2012 DATED 2.11.2013 WAS PLACED O N RECORD. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 5 WE FIND THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION MADE ON PAGE 5 ONWA RDS OF THIS ORDER IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT SHRI SOM NO TH SHARMA ALSO DID NOT FURNISH RETURNS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF S EARCH WHO HAD ALSO SHOWN INVESTMENT IN ASSETS AMOUNTING TO ` 23,38,396/- CONSISTING OF JEWELLERY INVESTMENT, LOANS AND ADVAN CES, SUNDRY DEPOSITS, CASH AND BANK BALANCE, ETC. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTMENT AND MA DE ADDITION U/S 69A OF THE ACT. WHEN THE MATTER FINALLY CAME U P BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THIS ISSUE STOOD RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRIES TO BE MADE F ROM THIRD PARTIES. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE INSTANT ISSU E SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED TO THE AO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN A MPLE OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DETAILS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO DO SO. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SINCE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF BOTH THE CASES ARE SIMILAR, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD ME ET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND T HE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE-DECIDING THIS ISS UE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CA SE OF SHRI SOHAN LAL SHARMA. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 6 7. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 43,520/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. FROM THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED HOUS EHOLD WITHDRAWALS AT ` 16,580/-. CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INVESTMENTS MADE IN VARIOUS COMPANIES, E TC., THE AO ESTIMATED ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 1,80,000/-, WHICH RESULTED INTO AN ADDITION OF ` 1,63,420/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED AVERAGE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE OF ` 20,000/- FOR A FAMILY OF HUSBAND, WIFE AND TWO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN. SINCE HE SUSTAINED ADDITION AT ` 15,000/- PER MONTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THE ESTIMATE OF ` 5,000/- PER MONTH TOTALING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 60,000/- WAS CONSIDERED TO BE APPROPRIATE. THIS RESULTED INTO REDUCTION IN THE A DDITION TO ` 43,420/-, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. THE LD. DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ABOUT THE R EVENUE HAVING FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED ADDITION BY CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES H OUSEHOLD ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 7 EXPENSES AT A MEAGER SUM OF `5,000 P.M. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN T HIS CASE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT SUCH AN ESTIMATE OF ` 5,000/- PER MONTH TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS MORE THAN REASONABLE. NO FUR THER INTERFERENCE IS, THEREFORE, WARRANTED IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 10. THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE L D. AR. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 11. THE THIRD GROUND IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF ` 54,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF SALARY INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED SALARY INCOME AT ` 54,000/- FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS PLACED ON RECOR D AS TO THE PARTICULARS OF EMPLOYER. THE AO TREATED THIS INCOME ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 8 UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD . CIT(A) WAS PLEASED TO UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN OR DER TO CLAIM A PARTICULAR AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD SALARY, IT IS TH E FIRST ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT TO DECLARE THE NAME OF EMPLOYER. THIS B ASIC REQUIREMENT IS LACKING IN THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE T HIS AMOUNT OF ` 54,000/- WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS HER INCOME AN D IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OF EMPLOYER FORTHCOMING, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIE D IN TREATING THIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 14. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF ADDITI ON OF ` 38,520/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO ESTIMATING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 1,80,000/- PER ANNUM, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 1,58,520/-. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE VIEW TAKEN BY HIM FOR THE A Y 2003-04 IN WHICH HE HAD ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES HOUSEHOLD EXP ENSES AT ` 5,000/- PER MONTH AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO ` 38,520/-. WE ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 9 FIND THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS GROUN D ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS SIMILAR TO THOSE FOR AY 2003-04. FOLLOWIN G THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 16. THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE L D. AR. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 17. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF ` 55,800/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF SALARY AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS G ROUND ARE ADMITTEDLY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE PRECEDING YEAR, FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDE R ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS THUS DISMISSED. 18. THE ONLY OTHER SURVIVING GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 36,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HERE AGAIN, WE FIND THAT THE AO ESTIMATE D THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 1,80,000/- PER ANNUM. THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED SUCH ESTIMATE OF THE ASSESSEES HOUSEHOLD W ITHDRAWALS ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 10 TO ` 5,000/- PER MONTH, WHICH RESULTED INTO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION AT ` 36,600/-. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN ABOVE IN EARLIE R YEARS, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND FAILS. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 20. THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE L D. AR. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 21. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE TREATMENT OF ` 58,200/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF SALARY AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS G ROUND ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE PRECEDING YEAR, FOLLOWING T HE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS I SSUE AND DECLARE IT TO BE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 22. THE ONLY OTHER SURVIVING GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 34,360/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HERE AGAIN, WE FIND THAT THE AO ESTIMATE D THE ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 11 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 1,80,000/- PER ANNUM. THE LD.CIT(A) REDUCED SUCH ESTIMATE OF THE ASSESSEES HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES TO ` 5,000/- PER MONTH WHICH RESULTED INTO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 34,360/-. FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN EARLIER YEARS , WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND FAILS. 23. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 24. THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE L D. AR. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 25. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITI ON ` 1,35,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S INSTEAD OF ` 90,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM SALARY AND ` 45,000/- SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME. 26. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALARY OF ` 90,000/- AND BUSINESS INCOME OF ` 45,000/-. NEITHER ANY SALARY CERTIFICATE NOR ANY PROFIT & LOS S ACCOUNT OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WAS FILED. THE AO, THEREFOR E, TREATED SUCH ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 12 AMOUNTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE AOS ACTION. 27. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER SALARY INCOME OF ` 90,000/- AND BUSINESS INCOME OF ` 45,000/-. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS SCORE. THIS GROUND FAILS. 28. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF AD DITION OF ` 1,17,570/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF ` 26,430/-. THE AO ESTIMATED ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 2,16,000/- AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 1,89,570/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE AT ` 30,000/- FOR FAMILY. SINCE HE ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES AT ` 18,000/- PER MONTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THE ESTIMATE WAS RESTRICTED TO ` 12,000/- PER MONTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS RESULTED INTO SUST ENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 1,17,570/-. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 13 29. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR , THE LD. CIT(A) MADE ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR FAMILY AT ` 20,000/- OUT OF WHICH ` 15,000/- PER MONTH WAS TREATED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND AND ` 5,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, THE LD. CIT(A) INCREASED SUCH ESTIMATE TO ` 30,000/- BY RESTRICTING THE ESTIMATE TO ` 18,000/- PER MONTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND. WE FIND THIS JUMP OF 50% IN FAMILY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FROM ` 20,000/- TO ` 30,000/- PER MONTH IS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION, IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THE THINGS TO ESTIMATE MONTHLY FA MILY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 25,000/-. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RETAINED ` 18,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO MAKE ESTIMATE OF ` 7,000/- PER MONTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS WOULD RESULT INTO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION AT ` 57,570/-. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 31. THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE L D. AR. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 32. GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITI ON ` 1,51,300/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S INSTEAD OF ` 96,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INC OME FROM SALARY AND ` 55,300/- SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME. 33. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALARY INCOME OF ` 96,000/- AND BUSINESS INCOME OF ` 55,300/-. NEITHER ANY SALARY CERTIFICATE NOR ANY P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WAS FILED. T HE AO, THEREFORE, TREATED SUCH AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHE R SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE AOS ACTION. 34. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSING THE RELEVANT RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER SALARY INCOME OF ` 96,000/- AND BUSINESS INCOME OF ` 55,300/-. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER AND FOLLOWING THE TAKEN HEREINABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE L D. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THIS AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 15 35. THE LAST GROUND IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF AD DITION OF ` 1,16,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF ` 27,500/-. THE AO ESTIMATED ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 2,16,000/- AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 1,88,500/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE AT ` 30,000/- FOR FAMILY. SINCE HE ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES AT ` 18,000/- PER MONTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND, THE ESTIMATE WAS RESTRICTED TO ` 12,000/- PER MONTH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS RESULTED INTO SUST ENANCE OF ADDITION OF ` 1,16,500/-. 36. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THE PRECEDING YEAR , WE HAVE UPHELD THE ESTIMATE OF MONTHLY EXPENSES OF THE ASSE SSEE AT `7,000 AS REASONABLE. FOLLOWING THE SAME, THE ADDIT ION IS RESTRICTED TO `56,500/-. 37. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 38. THE FIRST TWO GROUNDS WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE L D. AR. THE SAME ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 16 39. THE ONLY OTHER GROUND IS AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF ESTIMATE OF TOTAL INCOME AT ` 3,50,000/-. BRIEFLY STATED, T HE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING I NCOME OF ` 1,82,590/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED RECEIPT OF INTER EST ON LOAN AT ` 84,700/- IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WHEREAS IN THE RET URN, INTEREST INCOME WAS SHOWN AT ` 19,650/- WHICH WAS ALSO CLAIM ED TO BE DEDUCTIBLE UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ONLY BUSINESS INCOME OF ` 1,82,590/- REMAINED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS, THE AO ESTIMATED THE TOTAL INCOME AT ` 3,50,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THIS ESTIMATE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGA INST SUCH CONSOLIDATED ESTIMATE OF INCOME. 40. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH A D HOC ESTIMATE OF INCOME WITHOUT ANY BASE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WE P ROCEED TO CONSIDER THE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE ASSESSES INC OME. SHE DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF ` 84,700 IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME, INTEREST INC OME WAS SHOWN TO THE EXTENT OF ` 19,650 AND THEN DEDUCTIO N WAS CLAIMED AS PER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE ACT FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF SUCH INTEREST, WITHOUT MENTIONING AS TO UNDER WHICH SECTION SUCH I NTEREST WAS ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 17 DEDUCTIBLE. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2009-10. IN SUCH YEAR, EVEN THE DEDUCTION U/S 80L, WHICH USE D TO BE AVAILABLE ON INTEREST UP TO THE A.Y. 2005-06, IS N O MORE AVAILABLE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE SETTING UP A PROPER CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF INTEREST INCOME UNDER ANY OF THE SECTI ONS OF CHAPTER, VI-A, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INT EREST INCOME OF ` 84,700 SHOWN IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 41. NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGA RDS THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS SHOWN BY HER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAIL, WE SUSTAIN ADDITION AT THE SAME LEVEL AS TH AT OF THE PRECEDING YEAR AT `56,500/-. APART FROM THAT THE BU SINESS INCOME WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT `1,82.590. THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. 42. WHEN WE CONSIDER THE SUSTENANCE OF ABOVE ADDI TIONS, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO ` 3,23,790/-. WE DIRECT TO RESTRICT THE ESTIMATE OF TOTAL INCOME AT THIS LEVEL INSTEAD OF ` 3,50,000/-. ITA NOS.127 TO 133/DEL/2012 18 43. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.07.201 4. SD/- SD/- [ JOGINDER SINGH ] [ R.S. SYAL ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 31 ST JULY, 2014. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.