ACIT, JODHPUR V. Smt. Rekha Devi Kankaria, JODHPUR

ITA 223/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 22323314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 2(14)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 223/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) THE A.C.I.T. VS. SMT. REKHA DEVI KANKARIA, CIRCLE-3 PROP. M/S KANKARIA SALES, JODHPUR JALORI GATE, JODHPUR. PAN NO. ACAPK9615P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI, D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 21/11/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/11/2013. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 04/02/2013 OF LD. CIT (A), JODHPUR. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEE N RAISED IN THIS APPEAL:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ERRED :- 1. IN DECIDING THE GP ADDITION RS. 164535/- IGNORIN G THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF A/C WERE REJECTED AFTER ELABORATE DISCUSSI ON AND AVERAGE G.P. RATE WAS APPLIED ON BASIS OF PAST HISTORY AFTE R CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. TREATING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS EXEMPT U/S 2(14) IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN TRA DING OF PROPERTY INCLUDING SALE/PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND AGR EEMENT OF SALE 2 ON THE DATE OF PURCHASE ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ACTIV ITY WAS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND NOT FOR INVEST MENT. 3. DELETING THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURE INCOME RS. 67,171/- TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IGNORING THE FACT THAT AS SESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SINGLE EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVIT Y OR AGRICULTURE PRODUCE DESPITE SPECIFIC QUERY. 4. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LOW HOUSEHOLD DRAWING IGNORING THE FACT S DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. VIDE GROUND NO. 1, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTME NT RELATES TO DELETION OF GROSS PROFIT ADDITION OF RS. 1,64,535/-. 3. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 18/3/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 11,53,150/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 67,171/-. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HER PROPRIETORY CONCER N M/S KANKARIA SALES HAD DECLARED THE GROSS SALES OF RS. 43,41,292/- AND GRO SS PROFIT OF RS. 3,99,621/- GIVING G.P. RATE OF 9.21%, WHICH WAS LOWER THAN THE G.P. RATE OF PRECEDING YEAR DECLARED AT 14.60% AND G.P. RATE OF 20.30% IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006- 07. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E REASON FOR DECLINE IN G.P. RATE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECREASE IN G.P. RATES WAS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF INCREASE IN VAT TAXABLE GOODS, WHICH INCREASED FROM RS. 8,60,551/- TO RS. 17 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT CONVENIENCED WITH THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERV ED THAT THE CASH BOOK 3 LEDGERS AND BILL VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EXAMINED ON TEST CHECK BASIS, WHICH REVEALED THAT:- 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER OF THE GOODS. 2. THE AUDITOR ALSO HAS REPORTED FOR SUCH DEFECTS IN HIS REPORT U/S 44AB. 3. THE INVENTORY OF THE CLOSING AND OPENING STOCK IS NOT FURNISHED AND DETAILS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION FROM P URCHASE-SALES RECORDS. 4. THE PROPER AND COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE GOOD S IS NOT RECORDED ON SEVERAL SALE BILLS OF SPARES AND ACCESSORIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER TO BE REFERRED AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED G.P. RATE O F 14% AS AGAINST G.P. RATE OF 9.21% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,64,535/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND APPLYING THE G.P. RATE OF 14% TO MAKE T HE TRADING ADDITION. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR REJECTING THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WAS NON- MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER AND CERTAIN OTHER DEF ECTS IN MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS TO THE AP PLICATION OF G.P. RATE OF 14% AS AGAINST 9.21% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE REASONS FOR DECLINE IN G.P. RATE WAS THAT THE SALES OF VAT TAXABLE GODS INCREASED FROM RS. 8,60,551/- TO RS. 17,00,000 /-, BUT THE ASSESSING 4 OFFICER HAD NOT CONSIDERED THIS FACT IN RIGHT PERSP ECTIVE NOR GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE G.P. RATE DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 6. THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR DECLINE IN G.P. R ATE, WHICH WAS MAINLY DUE TO INCREASE IN THE VAT TAXABLE GOODS. IT IS ALSO NO TICED THAT OVERALL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO INCREASED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION IN COMPARISON TO THE EARLIER YEARS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE A PPLYING G.P. RATE OF 14%, HAD NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT REASON AND IT IS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER, THE G.P. RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 10. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD 5 SHOWN SALE OF TWO AGRICULTURAL LAND AT BANAR AND DE CLARED GAIN OF RS. 23,17,000/ ON SALE OF THOSE LANDS AS TAX FREE GAIN U/S 2(14)(III) OF THE ACT. ON QUERY THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN TRADI NG OF LAND, HOW THE TRANSACTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WERE PURCHAS ED IN 2001 AND 2008 RESPECTIVELY AND SOLD DURING THE YEAR WOULD GIVE TA X FREE GAIN U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THOSE LANDS WERE A GRICULTURAL LAND AND WERE PURCHASED FOR THE INVESTMENT, HENCE THE TRANSACTION WOULD NOT FORM BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND THE GAIN WILL BE EXEMPT AS AGRICULT URAL LAND WAS NOT CAPITAL ASSET. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND MERIT IN TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULAR LY INVOLVED IN TRADING OF LAND BY PLOTTING OR OTHERWISE AND DURING THE LAST T WO YEARS NUMBER OF PLOTS WERE SOLD AFTER DEVELOPING. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THA T SALE AGREEMENT DATED 30/10/2008 REVEALED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS. 20,75,000/-.THE LAND SO PURCHASED AND WAS SOLD ON THE SAME DAY, SO INTENTIO N OF PURCHASE WAS NOT INVESTMENT AND THE OTHER LAND, WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN 2001 AND SOLD THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD IN PIECES TO DIFFERENT PARTIES BY WAY OF F IVE SALE DEEDS. HE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTIONS AS ADVENTURE IN NATURE. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN JANUARY, 2008 AND SOLD IN OCTOBER, 2008 I.E. WITHIN 10 MONTHS ALSO SHOWED THE INTENTION OF TRANS ACTION MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING PROFIT. HE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERE D THE TRANSACTION AS AN 6 ADVENTURE IN TRADE AND REJECTED THE CLAIM MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. 12. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED WITH THE SOLE INTENTION TO HOLD THE LAND FOR CULTIVATION AND THE SAME WAS ACCE PTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CAPITAL INVESTMENT. ASSESSEE FURTHER STA TED THAT THE LAND WAS CULTIVATED REGULARLY BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND WAS ALSO CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER ITS PURCHASE AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE L AND WAS NOT SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND THE GAIN ARISES ON ACCOUN T OF SALE OF LAND WAS EXEMPT AS PER SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. IT WAS CON TENDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE SALE OF LAND WAS IN THE NATURE OF ADVENTURE IN TRADE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEVELOPED THE LAND. RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- I. CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA GEOL 163 TAXMAN 54 (M.P. ). II. CIT VS. MADHU BHAI H. PATEL 208 ITR 638 (GUJ.) 13. LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND ON 27/3/2001 AND J ANUARY, 2008 FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2,95,000/- AND RS. 3,85,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD ON 17/9/2008 AND 30/10/2008 FOR TOTAL CONS IDERATION OF RS. 9,22,500/- AND RS. 20,75,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE SA ID LANDS WERE SITUATED BEYOND THE 8 KM OF MUNICIPAL LIMITS AND THIS FACT W AS NOT DISPUTED BY THE 7 ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO EARN THE PROFI T, THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTION WAS ADVENTURE IN NATURE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE AGRICULTURAL LANDS, WHICH HAD BEEN REGULARLY C ULTIVATED AND THE SAME WERE SHOWN AS INVESTMENT, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OF FICER CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTION AS TRADING ACTIVITIES FOR THE REASON TH AT THE PURCHASE AND SALE WAS WITHIN A SHORT SPAN. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), T HE SAID OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE LD. CI T(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE FIRST LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE OSTRA, TEHSIL-BHOPAL GARH WAS PURCHASED ON 27/3/2001 AND WAS SOLD ON 19/9/2008 AND THE SECOND LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE DEVALIYA, WAS PURCHASED ON JANUARY, 2008 AND SOLD ON 30/10/2008. SO THE ASSESSEES ACTIVITIES IN RESPECT OF THOSE LANDS, WH ICH WERE SHOWN AS INVESTMENT, WERE NOT A TRADING ACTIVITY FOR EARNING QUICK PROFIT. THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAND PURCHASED ON 18/1/2008 WAS SOLD ON THE SAME DATE, W AS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE LAND WAS PURCHASED ON 18/1/ 2008ANDWASSOLD AFTER NINE MONTHS I./E. ON 30/10/2008. THE LD. CIT(A) ALS O OBSERVED THAT THE LANDS IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH WERE SITUA TED BEYOND 8 KM OF MUNICIPAL LIMITS. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE THAT GAIN OF RS. 23,17,000/-ON THE TRANSACTION WAS EXEMPTED U/S 2(14 ) OF THE ACT WAS ACCEPTABLE. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 8 14. THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE LAND I N PIECEMEAL, SO IT WAS A TRADING ACTIVITY AND THE EXEMPTION U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY DENIED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. 15. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- I. DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARJIT SINGH SANGHA, I.T.A NO. 16 OF 2012 , ORDER DATED 17.09.2012. II. DECISION OF ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE O F SUNIL BHANDARI VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 141 ITD PAGE 10. III. DECISION OF ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. USHA CHAJJER, I.T.A. NO. 216/JU/2013 DATED 22/10/2013. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE OST RA, TEHSIL- BHOPALGARH ON 27/3/2001, WHICH WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE S AID LAND WAS SOLD ON 19/9/2008. THE LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM T HE MUNICIPAL LIMITS, THEREFORE, THE GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE S AID AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS EXEMPTED U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. ANOTHER LAND WAS PUR CHASED BY THE ASSESSEE 9 ON 18/1/2008 AND WAS SOLD ON 30/10/2008, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN WRONG OBSERVATION THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD ON THE SAME DATE WHEN IT WAS PURCHASED. THE SAID LAND WAS SITUATED AT VILLAG E DEVALIYA AND WAS ALSO SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. THE LANDS IN QUESTION WERE PURCHASED AS AN INVESTMENT AND WERE AGRICULTURAL LA ND, WHICH WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THEREFORE, THE GAIN FROM THE SALE OF SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS EXEMPT U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTAN T CASE, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DEVELOP ED AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, EVEN IF, IT WAS SOLD IN PIECES, THE NATU RE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT CHANGE AND SINCE THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SIT UATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITL ED FOR EXEMPTION U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT ON THE GAIN DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE SA ID LAND. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE, DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 17. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 67,171/-, WHIC H WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 18. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 67,171/- AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY SOLD ANY AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE. 10 19. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT( A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE RELATED TO HER OLD AG RICULTURAL LAND. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND EARLIER A ND THAT THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 67,171/- WAS NOT ON HIGHER S IDE. HE, THEREFORE, DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE INCOME AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. NOW THE DEP ARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NOT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRM ITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 21. THE LAST ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 22. FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HER CONTRIBUTION IN HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. SHE HAD SHOWN TOTAL HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF THE FAMILY AT RS. 1,92,000/- OUT OF WHI CH RS. 1,20,000/- WERE CONTRIBUTED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FAM ILY CONSISTS OF TWO SCHOOL 11 GOING CHILDREN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING T HE SIZE OF FAMILY, THEIR LIVING STANDARD AND STATUS, ESTIMATED THE HOUSE HOL D EXPENSES @ RS. 30,000/- PER MONTH I.E. RS. 3,60,000/- PER ANNUM AND MADE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 23. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT( A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY CONSISTS OF ONLY FOUR MEMBERS INCLUDING TWO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN, FOR WHICH EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,92,000/- WAS SUFFICI ENT. 24. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORD ED ANY FINDING THAT DAILY NEEDS COULD NOT BE MEET BY THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES SHOWN AT RS. 1,92,000/- . HE, THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 25. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS WHILE MAKING THE ESTIMATE OF THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSE S AT RS.3,60,000/-INSTEAD OF RS. 1,92,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD STATED THAT THE FOODING COST WOULD NOT BE LESS THAN RS. 500/- PER DAY, HOWEVER, NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR THE SAME. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION FOR THE ESTIMATE OF CLOTHING, TELEPHONE CO NVEYANCE ETC. @ RS. 10,000/- PER MONTH AND EXPENSES ON ACS ETC. @ RS. 5 ,000/- PER MONTH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF ADM ITTED THAT THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF FOUR MEMBERS, WHICH INCLUDED T WO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN 12 AND THE MAIN CONTRIBUTOR TO THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES IS THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE CONTRI BUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED LOWER. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE B ASIS OF PRESUMPTION. WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29.11.2013). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29.11.2013 RANJAN* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.