JCIT Range - 3,Asansol, Asansol V. Sri Bithalnath Malia, Raniganj

ITA 15/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87683 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KALYAN NATH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Fair market value; Valuation report; Onus to prove
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM ] I .T.A NO. 15 /KOL/20 13 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, VS. SHRI BITHALNATH MALIA RANGE - 3, ASANSOL (PAN: AEAPM0118B) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 18 . 0 2 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20 . 0 2 .201 5 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI KALYAN NATH, JCIT FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SUNIL SURANA, FCA / ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM : THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF CIT (A) , ASANSOL IN APPEAL NO. 173 / CIT(A) /ASL/R - 3/ASL/10 - 11 DATED 11 . 1 0 .20 1 2 . ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED BY J CIT, RANGE - 3, ASANSOL U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 04 . 1 2 .20 1 0 . 2. THE FIRST ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BEING DIFFERENCE IN THE INVESTMENT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS ESTIMATED BY DVO IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY . FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.1: 1. THAT, THE LD. C IT (A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.50,05,925/ - DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RELYING UPON THE VALUATION DONE BY THE DVO. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED FROM THE STATEMENT OF AF FAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY NO. SF - 22, 2 ND FLOOR, VIVA COLLEGE COMPLEX , PARAGPUR, G. T. ROAD, JALANDHAR, PUNJAB TO THE TUNE OF RS.54,32,075/ - IN THE RELEVANT AY . THIS INVESTMENT IS MADE BY VIRTUE OF PURCH ASE AGREEMENT OF THE ABOVE STATED PROPERTY WITH THE BUILDER, COLLEGE ESTATE LTD. THE RELEVANT CLAUSE FOR ALLOTMENT OF THE ABOVE STATED PROPERTY , AS REPRODUCED BY AO , READS AS UNDER: THE DEVELOPER AGREES TO ALLOT TO THE ALLOTTEE THE PREMISES ADMEASURING 2683 SQ. FT. ( 249.58 SQ. MTR) OF SUPER AREA BEARING UNIT NO. SF 22 ON SECOND FLOOR, IN THE COMPLEX KNOWN AS VIVA COLLAGE @ RS. 2250/ - PER SQ. FT. (RS. 24, 1 87.50 PER SQ. 2 I TA NO. 15/K/2013 SHRI BITHALNATH MALIA AY. 2008 - 09 MTR . ) THE TOT AL AGREED CONSIDERATION (THE SALE CONSIDERATION) FOR SALE OF THE PREMISES IS RS. 60,36,750/ - (RUPEES SIXTY LACS THIRTY SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY ONLY) THE DETAILED TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE SHALL BE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE BUYER SPACE AGREEMENT FOR THE PREMISES WHICH SHALL BE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AFTER THE SIGNING OF THIS MOU. OUT OF THE TOTAL AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION, THE ALLOTTEE HAS PAID UNTO THE DEVELOPER UPON AND/OR PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THIS MOU AND AMOUNT OF RS. 54,33,075/ - ( RUPEES FIFTY FOUR LACS THIRTY THREE THOUSAND SEVENTY FIVE ONLY) HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ALLOTTEE THE RECEIPT WHEREOF THE DEVELOPER HEREBY ADMITS AND ACKNOWLEDGES. THAT M/S. HOME SOLUTIONS RETAIL ( I NDIA) LTD. HAS ISSUED A LOI/SIGNED A MOU WITH DEVELOPER TO TAKE AN LEASE THE SAID PREMISES FOR ITS USE AT A FIXED MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 45/ - PER SQ. FT. ( RU P EES FORTY FIVE PER SQ. FT) ON SUPER BUILT UP AREA. THE TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IN THE ABOVE STATED PROPERTY IS AMOUNTING TO RS.60,36,750/ - AND OUT OF THE TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION, IN THE RELEVANT FY 2007 - 08 RELEVANT TO THIS AY 2008 - 09 , THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS.54,33,075/ - . THE PROPERTY WAS REFERRED TO DVO FOR VALUATION U /S. 142A OF THE ACT AND DVO VALUED THE PROPERTY ON RENTAL METHOD BASIS AT RS.1.16 CR. THE AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE AND ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS BOOKED THIS PROPERTY WITH A BUILDER/DEVELOPER NAMELY COLLEGE ESTATE PVT. LTD. FOR A SUM OF RS.60,36,750/ - AND FOR WHICH DURING RELEVANT YEAR AN AMOUNT OF RS.54,33,075/ - WAS PAID AND PROPERTY WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID 90% OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION BUT POSSESSION WAS NOT TAKEN DUE T O NON - COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT/BUILDING . ACCORDINGLY, HE OBJECTED TO THE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION. HE ALSO OBJECTED THAT THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE REFERRED TO VALUATION FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAME IS PURCHASED FROM A DEVELOPER WHO HAS TO CONSTRUCT AND TO GIVE ON AGREED SALE PRICE. BUT THE AO HAS NOT AGREED TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AFTER ALLOWING 10% OF REBATE AT RS.1,04,40,000/ - AND ADDED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.50,05,925/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS DELETED THE ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 4 . BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FIRST OF ALL CHALLENGED THE VERY REFERENCE MADE BY AO TO DVO U/S. 142A OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND POSSESSION HAS NOT BEEN HANDED OVER AND EVEN PART PAYMENT IS NOT MADE. ACCOR DING TO LD. COUNSEL, THIS PROPERTY IS PURCHASED FROM A BUILDER AND IF AT ALL REFERENCE IS TO BE MADE THAT SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE BUILDER AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE 3 I TA NO. 15/K/2013 SHRI BITHALNATH MALIA AY. 2008 - 09 ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED ON AGREED SALE PRICE AND NO CONSTRUC TION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAVEEN GERA (2010) 328 ITR 516 (DEL.) AND HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K. P. VERG H ESE VS. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING CASE RECORDS. A DMITTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN UNDER - CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY FROM A BUILDER /DEVELOPER IN TERM OF THE ABOVE REPRODUCED CLAUSE OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (PARA 2 ABOVE) , THE CONSIDERATION RATE FOR ALLOTMENT OF PREMISES IS @ R S.2250/ - PER SQ. FT. ADMEASURING ABOUT 2683 SQ. FT. T HE ASSESSEE MA DE PAYMENT OF RS.54,33,075/ - IN THE RELEVANT FY 2007 - 08 RELEVANT TO THIS AY 2008 - 09 OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.60,36,750/ - . THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NO POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO OT HER EVIDENCE WITH THE AO IN RESPECT TO UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE DVO S REPORT OBTAINED U/S. 142A OF THE ACT, WHO VALUED THE PROPERTY ON RENTAL METHOD BASIS AT RS.1.16 CR. WE FIND FROM RECORDS THAT THE PROPERTY I S UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY ASSESSEE. THE BUILDER/DEVELOPER HAS NOT HANDED OVER THE PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHETHER THE DVO CAN ESTIMATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF RENT ADOPTION METHOD IN TERM OF REFERENCE U/S. 142A OF THE ACT. IN OUR VIEW, ONCE THE PROPERTY IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND NO PHYSICAL POSSESSION IS POSSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE, HOW THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE REFERRED TO VALUATION U/S. 142A OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO US, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AO WANTED TO FIND OUT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM BUILDER/DEVELOPER ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED FROM DVO BY MAKING A REFERENCE U/S. 142A OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR MAKING REFERENCE UNDER THIS PROVISION OF THE ACT IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FIRST PLACE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR THE INVESTMENT SO MADE BY HIM IS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONCE THIS CONDITION IS SATISFIED THE QUANTUM OF SUCH INVESTMENT CAN BE ASSER TING BY THE AO BY REFERRING THE INVESTMENT MADE TO DVO U/S. 142A OF THE ACT FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S. 69 OR 69B OF THE ACT, AS THE CASE MAY BE. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER MADE 4 I TA NO. 15/K/2013 SHRI BITHALNATH MALIA AY. 2008 - 09 BY THE AO TO ANY MAT ERIAL, EVIDENCE, INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE SAID CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERSTATED OR OVER AND ABOVE WAS PAID BY HIM AS CONSIDERATION. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR MAKING REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S. 142A OF THE ACT WAS NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE . NEITHER THE REFERENCE TO DVO NOR ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF DVO S REPORT MAKING VALUATION ON THE BASIS OF RENT ADOPTION METHOD IS SUSTAINABLE AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 6. WE FIND THAT A COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, DELHI TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4295/DEL/2005 DATED 04.05.2008 IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. RAJESHWAR NATH GUPTA HELD AS FOLLOWS: '15. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS SHOWS THAT SECTION 142A IS ATTRACTED, INTER ALIA, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR WHERE ANY SUCH INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM IS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR MAKING THE REFERENCE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142A THUS IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST PLACE HAS MADE SUCH INVESTMENT OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OR THE INVESTMENT SO MADE BY HIM IS NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ONCE THIS CONDITION IS SATISFIED, THE QUANTUM OF SUCH INVEST MENT MADE CAN BE ASCERTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 142A IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 OR 69B, WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RELEVANT PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR RS. 15 LAKHS AND THE AMOUNT OF THE SAID CONSIDERATION WAS PAID OUT OF ITS DISCLOSED SOURCES AS ACCEPTED EVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASSESSMENT. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HOWEVER, SHOWS THAT THERE WAS NO R EFERENCE WHATSOEVER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ANY MATERIAL/EVIDENCE/ INFORMATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE SAID CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDERSTATED AND THAT ANYTHING ABOVE WHAT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY BEEN PAID AS CONSIDERATION. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE D VO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142A THUS WAS NOT SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASE AND NEITHER THE SAID REFERENCE NOR THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OBTAINED FROM THE D VO IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID REFERENCE, IN OUR OPINION, WAS SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS). IN THE CASE OF SUBHASH CHAND CHOPRA V. ASST. CIT [2005] 92 TT) 1087, THIS BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL HAS HELD THAT NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHOWING INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT COMPETENT TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO UNDER SECTION 142A AND TO MAKE ADDITION ON THAT BASIS. IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE V. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 CITED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER A SIMILAR ASPECT IN THE CONTEXT OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND IT WAS HELD BY THEIR LORDSHIPS THAT THE BURDEN TO PROVE THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN UNDERSTATED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IN OTHER WORDS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER IS SHOWN AT A LESSER FIGURE THAN THAT ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALLEGED, IS ON THE REVENUE. FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE V. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF C I T V. GULSHAN KUMAR [2002] 257 ITR 703 THAT T HERE BEING NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS 5 I TA NO. 15/K/2013 SHRI BITHALNATH MALIA AY. 2008 - 09 UNDERSTATED OR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ANYTHING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED VALUE OF THE SHARES, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED CAPITAL GAINS WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ' 7. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CASE LAWS CONSIDERED BY US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW , THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE REVENUE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS ANY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED CONSIDERATION. IN TERM OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142A OF THE ACT THE REFERENCE TO DVO CAN BE MADE ONLY WHEN THERE IS A REQUIREMENT BY THE AO FOR MAKING SUCH REFERENCE AND SUCH REQUIREMENT WOULD ARISE WHEN THERE IS SOME MATE RIAL WITH THE AO TO SHOW THAT WHATEVER ESTIMATE OR CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT OR NOT RELIABLE. THE USE OF THE WORD REQUIRE IS NOT SUPERFLUOUS BUT SIGNIFIES A DEFINITE MEANING, WHEREBY FORMATION OF MIND EVEN PRELIMINARY ON OBJECTIV E BASIS BY THE AO IS VERY MUCH NECESSARY. FROM THE BARE READING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS ANY MATERIAL WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE DECLARED CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A DDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OR 69B OF THE ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. WE CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS ISSUE OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8 . GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUE IS IN RESPECT OF ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.1 LAC ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWING FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.2: 2. THAT, THE LD. CIT(A), ASANSOL HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.1,00,000/ - DISALLOWED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWING FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS SINCE THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON SUSPICION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION THAT APART FROM HIS DRAWINGS THAT THERE ARE DRAWINGS BY HIS WIFE AS WELL AS DRAWINGS FROM HUF OF WHICH ASSESSEE IS THE KARTA. THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS OBSERVED AS U NDER: IN THIS GROUND THE APPELLANT IS DISPUTING THE AO S ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT THE AO HAS SUSPECTED TO BE LOW DRAWINGS. THE APPELLANT S SUBMISSION IS THAT APART FROM HIS DRAWINGS THERE ARE DRAWINGS BY THE WIFE AS WELL AS DRAWINGS FROM THE HUF OF WHICH HE IS THE KARTA. I DO NOT FIND THE AO HAVING CONSIDERED THESE ASPECTS WHILE MAKING THIS ADDITION. IN MY OPINION, THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS BELIEF THAT THE DRAWINGS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT ARE TOO LOW. UNDER THE CI RCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6 I TA NO. 15/K/2013 SHRI BITHALNATH MALIA AY. 2008 - 09 10. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION CONSIDERING THE DRAWINGS OF ASSESSEE WITH HIS WIFE AS WELL AS DRAWINGS FROM HUF OF WHICH HE IS THE KARTA. WE ALSO N OTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES ON THE HOUSEHOLD DRAWING MUCH MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE HOUSEHOLD DRAWING HAS MERELY BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE AO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT AND WE NOTED THAT THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENSES MUCH MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS. IN CASE THE REVENUE GOT SHIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENSES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. APPARENT IS REAL ONUS IS ON THE PERSON WHO ALLEGES APPARENT IS NOT REAL. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMALL (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) . HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 1 2 . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.02.2015 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH FEBRUAR Y , 201 5 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . A PPELLANT SHRI BITHALNATH MALIA, B. G. PALACE, SEARSOLE RAJBARI, RANIGANJ - 713347 . 2 RESPONDENT JCIT, RANGE - 3, ASANSOL . 3 . THE CIT(A), ASANSO L 4. 5. CIT ASANSOL DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .