Smt. Nikita Kukreja, Kanpur V. Inocme Tax Officer-3(3), Kanpur

ITA 188/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0731 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SWATI RATNA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.188/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010 - 2011 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(3), KANPUR. VS SMT. NIKITA KUKREJA, MONA COTTAGE, 7/181 - A, SWARUP NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ABCPK8118L (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SMT. SWATI RATNA, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 25/06/2015 DATE OF HEARING 24 /07/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 10/11/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. BECAUSE THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX - PARTE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE BEING PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPR ECIATING THE SAME AND HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. 3. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE AND IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.90,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NO WITHDRAWALS TO MEET THE PERSONAL EXPENSES. 2 4. BECAUSE IN ANY CASE AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS.90,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS IS CONTRARY TO FACTS, BAD IN LAW AND BE DELETED. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI PANKAJ KUKREJA IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE IS WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5 LAC BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE COMBINED WITHDRAWA L BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND IS INADEQUATE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 4. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DRAWINGS FROM HER CAPITAL TO MEET OUT HER PERSONAL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT RS.10,000/ - PER MONTH SHOULD BE ESTIMAT ED AS PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THEREAFTER , HE HELD THAT TO AVOID ANY ERROR OF ESTIMATION, HE IS HOLD ING THAT RS.7,500/ - PER MONTH IS PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THIS MANNER , HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.90,000/ - . WE FIND THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS ANY WITHDRAWAL OF RS.5 LAC BY HER HUSBAND . SIMILARLY, BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO, THERE IS NO SUCH SUBMISSION RAISED. BUT THE COPY OF SUBMISSION DATED 23/08/2012 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 1 & 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IN THIS SUBMISSION , THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE STAYS WITH HIS HUSBAND SHRI PANKAJ KUKREJA AND HIS PARENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO GIVEN THE DETAILS OF HER FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH INCLUDES HER HUSBAND SHRI PANKAJ KUKREJA, HER SON YASH KUKREJA, STUDENT AND HER SECOND SON MEHUL KUKREJA, 10 YEARS STUDENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF SON S OR ANY FAMILY MEMBER IS DEPENDENT ON THE ASSESSEE AND ALL HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND EDUCATION EXPENSES ARE TAKEN 3 CARE OF BY HER HUSBAND. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES FATHER - IN - LAW OWNS THE HOUSE AND THE FAMILY STAYS WITH HIM. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF HER HUSBAND SHRI PANKAJ KUKREJA ALONG WITH BALANCE SHEET , PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT. INSPITE OF THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THIS SUBMISSION. WHEN THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING DRAWINGS OF RS.5 LAC AS PER COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT, AVAILABLE ON PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THERE ARE ONLY FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE, HER HUSBAND AND TWO SONS AND THEY ARE LIVING IN OWN HOUSE OWNED BY FATHER - IN - LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FEEL THAT UNDER THESE FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWAL IS NOT PROPER. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 24 /07/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR