ITO, Jaipur V. SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL, Jaipur

ITA 1321/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 132123114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 2

Judgement Text

1 ITA 1321(2)-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ) ITA NO. 1321/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SMT/ SONU KHANDELWAL , WARD 2(3), C-19, JAGAN PATH, JAIPUR. CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 118/JP/2010 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1321/JP/2011 ) ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06. SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR. WARD 2(3), JAIPUR. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL DATE OF HEARING : 03.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2011 ORDER DATED : 18/11/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT AND CROSS OBJECTIO N BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE DEPARTMENT IS OBJECTING IN DELETING THE TRAD ING ADDITION OF RS. 2,61,917/- AND DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 15,49,100/- OUT OF TOTAL A DDITION OF RS. 17,58,650/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 . 2 3. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HER CROSS OBJECTION IS OBJE CTING IN SUSTAINING THE REMAINING ADDITION BY LD. CIT (A) I.E. RS. 2,09,550/- UNDER S ECTION 68. 4. SINCE THESE GROUNDS ARE CO-RELATED, THEREFORE, T HEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER. 5. REGARDING TRADING ADDITION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT THE BUSINESS FROM THE WIFE OF HER BROTHER-IN-LAW AND SHE HAS CHANGED THE NAME OF M/S. SEJAL ENTREPRENEUR TO M/S. SEJAL ENTERPRISES. THE BUSINESS IS OF STEEL FURNITURE. ON SALE OF RS. 97.67 LACS OR ODD, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED GP RATE OF RS. 12.32%. AO NOTED THAT NO STOCK REGISTER HAS BEEN MAINTAINED. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT WAGES EX PENSES OF RS. 11.89 LACS OR ODD WAS ALSO NOT VERIFIABLE, THEREFORE, HE APPLIED A GP RAT E OF 15% WHICH RESULTED IN TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 2,61,917/-. THE LD. CIT (A) OBSERV ED THAT THERE WAS SLIGHT DIFFERENCE IN GP. HOWEVER, THERE WAS INCREASE IN TURNOVER BY 10% , THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ENHANCING THE GP RATE AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AS THERE WAS NO MAJOR DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ENTIRE TRADING ADDITION. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF AO AND LD. CIT ( A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED EXCEPT STOCK REGISTER. NON-MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER DOES NOT WARRANT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION IF THERE IS NO OTHER MAJOR DEFECT IN MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS ACCOUNT EXC EPT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS NOT PROPER. ACCO RDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE TRADING ADDITION. 7. REGARDING ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68, THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED UNSECURED CASH LOANS OF RS. 17,58,650/- FROM 3 99 PERSONS. ALL LOANS ARE INDIVIDUALLY LESS THAN R S. 20,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO VERIFY THE CREDITS BY PRODUCING THE CREDITORS. 50 C REDITORS WERE PRODUCED OUT OF 99 CREDITORS, ON WHOSE BEHALF AFFIDAVITS WERE ALSO FIL ED. ON VERIFICATION OF AFFIDAVITS, THE AO HAS FOUND THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN LOANS TO SMT. SON U KHANDELWAL, THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS IS IN THE NAME OF M/S. SEJAL ENTREPRENEURS, THE AFFIDAVITS GIVEN FOR M/S. SEJAL ENTERPRISES HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH M/S. SEJAL ENTREPRENEURS. FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED, THE AO FOUND THAT MOST OF THE PERSONS ARE MEN OF SMALL MEANS HAVING NO BANK ACCOUNT. THERE A PPEARS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GIVING LOANS TO THEIR EMPLOYER. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWE D THE ENTIRE CREDITS AND ADDED THE SAME UNDER SECTION 68. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FILED. THIRTEEN AFFIDAVITS WERE FILE D IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF CASH CREDITS. TWENTY SEVEN AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO WAS ASKED TO EXAMINE ALL THE AFFIDAVITS AND SEND THE RE MAND REPORT. THE AOS REMAND REPORT DATED 19.5.2010 WAS RECEIVED. THE AO ON VERIFICATIO N OF AFFIDAVITS HAS FOUND THAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAJID KHAN, CREDITOR, NO WAGES WERE PA YABLE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI NADEEM KHAN IT IS NOT WRITTEN THAT THE AMOUNT GIVEN WAS OU T OF WHICH OUTSTANDING WAGES. IN THE CASE OF SRI PURAN CHAND, THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN ON 5. 4.2004 AND 5 DAYS WAGES CANNOT BE RS. 50,000/-. IN THE CASE OF BABY KASHYAP, THE LOA N GIVEN ON 3.4.2004. IN 3 DAYS WAGES OF RS. 13,000/- CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. IN THE CASE OF SHRI ADIL KHAN, HE HAS WORKED ONLY ONE DAY AND, THEREFORE, HE CANNOT CLAIM WAGES OF RS . 18,000/-. IN THE CASE OF SHRI ABDUL ZABAR, IN TWO DAYS WAGES CANNOT BE RS. 15,000/-. IN THE CASE OF SHRI BANWARILAL, THE DATE IS NOT GIVEN AND IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT LABOUR WIL L GIVE RS. 15,550/-. SHRI NIRANJAN SINGH, 4 SHRI RAMNATH, SHRI PAPPU KUMAR MEENA, JAVED AND SHR I SAGIR HAVE GIVEN LOANS ON 1 ST AND 2 ND OF APRIL, 2004. IN ONE OR TWO DAYS THIS MUCH WAGES WERE NOT OUTSTANDING. 8.1. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME THE LIST OF CREDITORS WERE NOT FILED AND, THEREFORE, IT IS AFT ER THOUGHT. THESE PERSONS HAVE STATED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN OUT OF THEIR OUTSTANDING WAG ES. THEIR MONTHLY WAGES COMES TO RS. 4500/- TO RS. 5500/- AND, THEREFORE, IT DOES NO T APPEAR TO BE CONVINCING THAT SUCH PERSONS WILL GIVE THEIR WAGES OF ALMOST 3-4 MONTHS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO CONSIDERED THE CREDITS AS NON GENUINE AND THE ASSESSEES OWN M ONEY. 8.2. CONTENTION OF THE LD. A/R IS THAT IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS CONFIRMATIONS AS WELL AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED GIVING COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESSES. MOREOVER, STATEMENTS OF 50% WERE RECORDED AND THEY ALL ACCEPTED THE LOANS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. AS THE AMOUNT WAS DULY RECEIVED IN ALL T HE CASES, THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT DISPUTED. ALL THE CREDITORS A RE EARNING PERSONS, DOING JOB WORK AND HAVE SAVINGS OF THIS TYPE OF SMALL/PETTY AMOUNTS. R ELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KANHAYALAL JANGID VS. ACIT, 8 DTR 38 (R AJ.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAVING FILED CONFIRMATIONS FROM CREDITORS AND HAVING PRODUCED CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO WHERE THE CREDITORS AFFIRMED THE ADVANCING O F LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT CREDITORS COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF LO ANS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF ARAVALI TRADING VS. ITO, 8 DTR 199 (RAJ.). FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CREDITORS WERE ITS LABOURERS AND WERE READY TO PLACE THEIR MONEY WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEY WERE NOT HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO OPENED HER BANK ACCOUNT IN THE MO NTH OF FEBRUARY, 2005. THE ASSESSEE, 5 THEREFORE, ACCEPTED CASH LOAN OF BELOW RS. 20,000/- UNDER COMPULSION TO AVOID PENALTY PROVISIONS. IT IS USUAL PRACTICE OF THESE TYPES OF LABOURERS WHO COME FROM OUTSIDE TO MAKE THE DEPOSIT WITH THE EMPLOYER TO GET IT BACK WHENEV ER THEY PROCEED FOR NATIVE PLACE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE CREDITORS AND HAS ALSO PRODUCED 50 CREDITORS WHO HAVE ADMITTED HAVING MADE DEPOSITS WITH THE ASSESSE E AND EXPLAINED THE SOURCE AS PAST SAVINGS/SALARY/LABOUR WORK. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT EXPLAINE D THE SOURCE AND HAD NO CAPACITY TO ADVANCE SUCH SMALL AMOUNT. NO DIFFERENCE WAS FOUND IN CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS. IT IS ALSO SAID THAT I N THE CASES WHERE THE AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN FILED YET THE CONTENTS THEREOF HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTT ED BY THE AO, THE FACTS MENTIONED THEREIN HAVE TO BE READ AS THE FACTS BINDING UPON T HE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS AND NATURE OF PAYMENT IS NOT DISPU TED BY THE AO. AND SO FAR AS, DIFFERENCE IN THE NAME OF THE CONCERN, THAT WAS BON AFIDE MISTAKE AS THEY WERE AWARE OF PREVIOUS NAME AND STYLE (M/S. SEJAL ENTREPRENEURS). THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT WITNESSES APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE COME FORWARDED TO GIVE FALSE AFFIDAVIT TO OBLIGE THE ASSESSEE. 8.3. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT BENEFIT O F SET OFF OF TELESCOPING OF TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 2,61,917/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 71,5 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS TOTALING TO RS. 3,33,417/- MAY BE GIVEN . WITH THIS, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 MAY BE DELETED. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER ONUS FOR PRODUCING THE VARIOUS CREDITORS. HOWEVER, HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF 6 CREDITORS OF RS. 2,09,550/-. ACCORDINGLY, TO THIS EXTENT THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS DELET ED BY LD. CIT (A). 10. THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ADDITION WAS DELETED AND REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,09,550/-, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON RECORD. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF AO AND LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15 LACS OR ODD AND WAS ALSO JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 2 LACS OR ODD. THEREFORE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) HAVE BEEN RECORDED AT PAGES 4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- CONTENTION OF THE AR IS CONSIDERED. THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT IN DISPUTE AS THE CONFIRMATIONS AS WELL AS A FFIDAVITS WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE CREDITORS. FIFTY OUT OF 99 CREDITORS APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND HAVE ADMITTED GIVING LOA NS TO THE APPELLANT. IN THE REMAINING CASES FOR VARIOUS REAS ONS THE CREDITORS WHO ARE LABOURER COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BUT FURTHER AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED AND THEY HAVE ALSO ADMITTED GIVING LOANS. AS THE SAME BUSINESS WAS CONTINUED THOUGH IN THE CHANGED NAME O F M/S. SEJAL ENTERPRISES FROM OLD NAME OF M/S. SEJAL ENTREPRENEU RS, IT HAS NOT MUCH SIGNIFICANCE THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL OF M/S. SEJAL ENT REPRENEURS. SIMPLY, BY NOT MENTIONING THE NEW NAME THE AFFIDAVI TS DO NOT BECOME REDUNDANT. THE VERACITY OF THE AFFIDAVITS H AS NOT BEEN DISPROVED BY THE AO BY RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS. THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF CREDITORS ARE L EGALLY EXPLAINABLE DOCUMENT INSPITE OF OBVIOUS MISTAKE OF WRITING M/S. SEJAL 7 ENTREPRENEURS AND NOT M/S. SEJAL ENTERPRISES. REGA RDING CREDITWORTHINESS OF CREDITORS THE PERSONS WHO HAVE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO HAVE GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THEIR FAMILY SIZE, THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME. EVEN IF THE CREDITORS ARE LABOURERS, PAST S AVINGS OF RS. 15,000/- TO RS. 20,000/- CANNOT BE DENIED. ON EXAMI NATION OF 13 AFFIDAVITS, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOURC E OF CREDITORS OF SOURCE OF CREDITS, PARTICULARLY, WHEN MOST OF THESE PERSONS HAVE JOINED JUST FEW DAYS BACK TO THE APPELLANT. TO THA T EXTENT THE CREDITORS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND, THEREFORE, 13 C REDITS TOTALING TO RS. 2,09,550/- ARE HELD AS UNEXPLAINED AND, THER EFORE, THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 TO THAT EXTENT IS HE REBY CONFIRMED. IN REMAINING CASES AS THE AFFIDAVITS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED, THERE APPEARS NO REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTIN G THE SAME. KEEPING IN VIEW THE BUSINESS PRACTICE THAT SOME MON EY OUT OF THEIR WAGES IS KEPT TO RETAIN THE LABOURERS WITH THE BUSI NESSMEN, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT THE MONEY BELONGING TO THE LA BOURERS WAS GOT AS CREDITS IN THE NAME OF RESPECTIVE LABOURERS. THE CREDITORS HAVE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THEIR DEPOSITS AND ACC EPTANCE OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT IN DOUBT. HAVING ADMITTED TO HAVE ADVANCING THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CREDITS CANNOT BE DENIED AS HELD IN THE CASE OF KANHAYALAL JANGID VS. ACIT, 217 CTR 354. THE E XPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE CREDITORS ABOUT HIS SOURCE OF SUCH ADVANCING EVEN IF NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE CANNOT LEAD TO ANY P RESUMPTION THAT SOURCE OF SUCH ADVANCING BY CREDITORS EMANATED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 17,58,650/- IS, THEREFORE, REDU CED TO RS. 2,09,550/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS DECIDED P ARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 13. SINCE THESE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE AFTER A PPRECIATING ALL THE FACTS AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STATEMENT OF 50 PERSONS AND AFFIDAVITS OF REMAINING VARIOUS OTHER 8 PERSONS, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PART ADDITION. 14. REGARDING THE NAME, WHICH THE AO COULD NOT UNDE RSTOOD PROPERLY, HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY LD. CIT (A). M/S. SEJAL ENTR EPRENEURS WAS THE NAME OF PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF WIFE OF ASSESSEES BROTHE R-IN-LAW AND THIS BUSINESS WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE AND NAME WAS CHANGED AS M/S. S EJAL ENTERPRISES. THEREFORE, IN AFFIDAVIT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN HAS BEEN GIVEN TO M/S. SEJAL ENTERPRISES. THIS FACT HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION BY LD. CIT (A). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE RE ASONING GIVEN BY LD. CIT (A), WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THE GROUND OF TH E DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 15. THERE IS NO OTHER GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE D EPARTMENT. 16. THERE IS ONE MORE GROUND IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY ASSESSEE I.E. AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. 17. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS.29,500/ - FOR HER HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO TREATED THAT THIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE SHO WN ON VERY LOWER SIDE. THEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL AT RS. 1,00,000/ - AND AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 29,500/- SHOWN BY ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,500/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO . 18. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEES HUSBAND, WHO IS ASSESSED TO TAX HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 90,000/- AND THIS FACT WAS BROUGH T TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS ALSO MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT A WITHDRAW AL OF RS. 90,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN BY 9 THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO BENEFIT O F THIS AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED. BEFORE T HE AO, NO DETAILS WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 7 1,500/-. HOWEVER, THE FACT IN REGARD TO WITHDRAWAL BY HUSBAND AT RS. 90,000/- WAS BROUGH T ON RECORD BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE AO HAS MADE ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 1,00,000/-, AND IF WITHDRAWALS SHOW N BY HUSBAND AND BY ASSESSEE, WHO ARE LIVING TOGETHER ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, T HEN IT IS MORE THAN THE ESTIMATE MADE BY AO. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY FURTHER ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,500/-. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. 20. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 .11.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/ COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ITO WARD 2(3), JAIPUR. SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1321(2)/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.