ACIT, Jaipur V. ASHA MANDOWRA, Jaipur

ITA 233/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5276 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ASHA MANDOWRA, 155, SECTOR NO. 7, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ACTPM 0669 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.R. MEENA (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/05/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/06/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 31/01/2014 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE REVENUE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UNDER: (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DEL ETING ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 2 ADDITION OF RS.72,05,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DEL ETING ADDITION OF RS. 10,87,227/- ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY CHARGES. (III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 21,29,706/- OUT OF ADDITION O F RS. 21,94,186/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. (IV) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2,55,641/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS EXPORTER OF SAND STONE. THE ASSES SEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 26/9/2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 1,57,58,773/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). GROUND NO. (I) OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGA INST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 72,05,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. TH E LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF TRADING AND EXPORT OF SAND STONE AND SLATE STONE. DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASE FOR RS. 72,05,000/- FROM SMT. MANISHA MUNDRA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S MANISHA STONES RESIDENT O F R.C. VYAS COLONY, BHILWARA. HE NOTICED THAT ALL BILLS WERE SERIALLY NUM BERED AND WITHOUT SIGN. ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 3 THEREFORE, HE GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO PROVE THESE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM M/S MANISHA STONES , REGISTERED DEALER UNDER THE RAJASTHAN VAT ACT. HE ALSO FILED CONFIRMA TION OF ACCOUNT AND ARGUED THAT ALL PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROU GH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL ARE NOT SACROSANCT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS SHATRUNJAY DIAMOND (2003) 261 ITR 258 (BOMBAY). ACCORDINGLY, HE HELD THAT PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S MANISHA STONES ARE DIVERSIO N OF INCOME. THUS, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 72,05,000/- IN THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BUT NO ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUN T OF G.P., WHICH WAS CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 30,23,90 4/- AS TELESCOPING BENEFIT WAS GIVEN BY HIM. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD ALL OWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED REGULARLY FROM M/S MANISHA STONES NOT ONLY DURING THE YEAR AND ALSO IN PRECEDI NG YEAR, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED C ONFIRMATION DETAILS OF ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 4 PAYMENT, COMPARABLE RATES OF THE STONES PURCHASED A ND DETAILS OF GOODS EXPORTED OUT OF PURCHASE MADE FROM M/S MANISHA STON ES. SINCE THE SUPPLIER WAS ONLY SUPPLIED GOODS TO THE APPELLANT, B ILLS WERE SERIALLY NUMBERED, WHICH CANNOT BE DOUBTED AS OTHER EVIDENCE PROVED THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE. THE SUPPLIER HAS PAN NUMBER. IN EARLIER YEAR, TRADING ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A), WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, TH EREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT TH E OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFO RE THE LD CIT(A) I.E. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION, DETAILS OF PAY MENT MADE THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT, DETAILS OF GOODS EXPORTED OUT OF PURC HASES MADE FROM M/S MANISHA STONES, WHICH WERE EXPORTED OUT OF INDIA. HE HAS ALSO FILED COMPARABLE RATE OF GOODS PURCHASED AND THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING PAN AND NOT RELATED PARTY. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO UPHOL D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD PROVED BEYOND ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 5 DOUBT THAT THE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE FROM M/S MANIS HA STONES. IN ABSENCE OF PURCHASE, NO SALES CAN BE MADE. THE ASSES SEE MADE PAYMENT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, FILED CONFIRMATION FR OM M/S MANISHA STONES,PAN NUMBER AND PURCHASED DETAILS OF STONE. T HE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY DOUBTED THE PURCHASES ON THE BASIS OF BILLS WERE SERIALLY NUMBERS BUT SUPPLIER WAS SELLING GOODS TO THE ASSESS EE ONLY, THEREFORE, BILLS WERE SERIALLY NUMBERED. THE OTHER DETAILS SUPPO RT THE ASSESSEES CASE THAT THESE PURCHASES WERE GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY WE UPH OLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 6. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,87,227/- ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY CHARGES. TH E LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED ROYALTY CHAR GES OF RS. 10,87,227/- IN TRADING ACCOUNT. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR BRINGING STONES OUT OF MINING AREA, THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AT CHECK POST. THE LD ASSESSING OF FICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OWN MINES AND THERE IS NO REASON T O DEPOSIT ROYALTY IN ABSENCE OF MINE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN PRECEDING YEAR AND HAS BEEN CL AIMED AND ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNER O F THE MINES BUT GOODS ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 6 ARE RECEIVED FROM THE MINES TO THE GODOWN OF THE ASS ESSEE DIRECTLY FOR EXPORT PURPOSES, THEREFORE THIS ROYALTY WAS PAID AT THE CLEARANCE OF THE VEHICLES. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAGATI CONSTRUCTIO N CO. VS ACIT 89 ITR 271 (DELHI) AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,87,227/ -, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT ROYALTY IS PAYABLE BY THE VEHICLE CARRYING MINING PRODUCTS AT THE CHECK POST. APPELLA NT SUBMITTED CERTAIN BILLS AND ROYALTY RECEIPTS AS PER WHICH EITHER NAME OF APPELLANTS CONCERN OR ONLY DESTINATION PLACE IS MENTIONED. THIS CLEARLY S HOWS THAT ROYALTY WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT AND APPELLANT WAS ISSUED ROYAL TY RECEIPT. WHEN ROYALTY IS PAYABLE AT THE CHECK POST, IT HAS NOTHIN G TO DO WITH LEASE OR OWNERSHIP OF MINES, THEREFORE, IT IS AN ALLOWABLE EXP ENSES. 7. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT TH E OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ROYALTY IS A CHARGE COLL ECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT WHENEVER ANY VEHICLE OR A PERSON LIFTS STONES OUT OF THE MINING AREA IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT WHO IS OWNER OF THE MI NES. IT IS COLLECTED ON THE BASIS OF WEIGHT OF THE GOODS. THE ASSESSEE HAS LI FTED GOODS FROM MINES ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 7 AND PAID THE ROYALTY AT THE CHECK POST AS PER WEIGHM ENT SLIP. RECEIPTS OF ROYALTY ARE EITHER IN THE NAME OF FIRM OR IN THE NA ME OF DESTINATION OF PLACES. ALL THE DESTINATION PLACES ARE THOSE WHERE HEAD OFFICE OR BRANCH OFFICES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SITUATED. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 66 TO 109 AND ARGUED THAT THESE ARE T HE ALLOWABLE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE I S IN THE EXPORT BUSINESS OF STONE. STONE IS EXCAVATED FROM THE MINES AND THE REAFTER THROUGH VEHICLES, IT IS TRANSPORTED. THESE VEHICLES ARE SUBJ ECT OF PAYMENT OF ROYALTY AT THE CHECK POST. IT IS A FACT THAT THE CHECK POST ARE CHARGED ROYALTY ON THE BASIS OF WEIGHMENT AND THEN ISSUED RECEIPTS ON T HE BASIS OF VEHICLE NUMBER OF MOST OF THE ROYALTY RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN EI THER IN THE NAME OF VEHICLE OR IN THE NAME OF THE DESTINATION IT PERTAI NED. THEREFORE, THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO CLEAR THE GOOD S FROM THE MINES DIRECTLY, WHICH WAS EXPORTED. THE LD DR HAD NOT CONTRO VERTED THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE OR DER OF THE LD CIT(A). 9. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,29,706/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSI NG STOCK. THE LD ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 8 ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VA LUED THE STOCK WRONGLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 1 0,11,254/-. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BOOKED THE SALE ON 2 6/3/2009 BUT GOODS COULD NOT BE SOLD IN THE F.Y. 2008-09 BUT SOLD IN F .Y. 2009-10, THEREFORE, THESE GOODS WERE PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE AS SESSEE. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO VERIFIED THE SALE VALUE OF T HE GOODS AND ANALYSED THE VALUATION ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCES IN PURCHASE V ALUE. HE CALCULATED THE CLOSING STOCK AT RS. 32,05,440/-. ACCORDINGLY HE MA DE ADDITION OF RS. 21,94,186/-. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD ALL OWED THE APPEAL PARTLY. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE DETAILS OF COST WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN PREPAID EXPENSES AND AFTER REMOVING ALL THOSE DEFECTS POINTED BY THE APPELLANT, VALUE OF THE INVENTORY IN RESPECT OF THREE SALES COMES CLOSE TO WHAT WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANT ONLY FOUND VARIATION IN STOCK AT RS. 64,480/-, WHICH WAS S HOWN LESS IN THE CLOSING INVENTORY. HE FURTHER HELD THAT GP RATE CAN NOT BE STATIC AND UNIFORM IN ALL THE YEARS. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION OF RS. 64,480/- AND DELETED THE REMAINING ADDITION. ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 9 11. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT TH E OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION SIMPLY BY APPLYING A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA OF DERIVE D PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE CLOSING STOCK LYING AT PORT VIS A VIS THE VALUE OF EXPORT SALE OF THAT STOCK. THIS IS INCORRECT AND SUFFERS FROM THE DEFECT S. THE CLOSING STOCK IS TO BE VALUED BY INCLUDING COST OF THE PURCHASE, ROYALT Y, LOADING UNLOADING AND FREIGHT UP TO ASSESSEES GODOWN. THEREAFTER THE ASSES SEE FURTHER INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON EXPORTING THE GOODS FROM GODOWN TO PO RT AND INCURRED VARIOUS CHARGES, WHICH INCLUDES LOADING, UNLOADING, CRATE CHARGES, CRANE CHARGES, FUMIGATION CHARGES, CUSTOM CHARGES, AGENCY FEES ETC, THESE EXPENSES WERE DEBITED AS PREPAID EXPENSES AS GOODS WE RE NOT SOLD AS ON 31/3/2009. THE ASSESSEE BY OVERSIGHT HAD NOT CONSIDE RED THE STOCK OF MATERIAL LYING AT THE PORT FOR RS. 64,480/-. THERE WA S ANOTHER REASON, THE VALUE OF EURO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCES IN THE CLOSING STOCK. ACCOR DINGLY, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE LD ASSESS ING OFFICER WRONGLY ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 10 VALUED THE CLOSING STOCK ON THE BASIS OF SALE BILL, WHICH HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFO RE US. THERE WAS A STOCK LYING AT THE PORT FOR RS. 64,480/-, WHICH REMA INED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE L D CIT(A). THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED THE CLOSING STOCK ON T HE BASIS OF SALE PRICE, WHICH INCLUDES G.P.. THE WORKING MADE BY THE LD ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DEFECTIVE, WHICH HAS BEEN RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 13. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,55,641/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WI THDRAWALS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WIT HDRAWN RS. 4,54,286/- AND HIS SON AT RS. 2,89,372/-, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND R EASONABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HE PROPOSED TO ESTIMA TE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 10.00 LACS. HE FURTHER HELD THAT BO TH THE SON AND DAUGHTER ARE STUDYING AND REQUIRED TO INCUR THE EXPENDITURE ON TUITION. SON OF THE ASSESSEE IS C.A. AND DAUGHTER IS STUDYING TO BE DOC TOR. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TUITION EXPENSES, HOSTEL EXPENSES, BOARDING EXP ENSES, POCKET EXPENSE, MEDICAL EXPENSES, HE ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES A T RS. 10.00 LACS AND ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 11 MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,55,641/- IN THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPEL LANT WAS RESIDING IN HER OWN HOUSE. THERE WAS NO SOCIAL OCCASION DURING THE YEAR. THE TOTAL WITHDRAWAL BY ALL FOUR MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY DURING T HE YEAR WAS RS. 7,68,607/-, WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN RS. 3.00 LACS WITHDRAWALS IN LAST TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT TH E OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFO RE THE LD CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OWN HOUSE, S IMPLE FAMILY LIFE STYLE. BOTH THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE ARE INCOME TAX AS SESSEE AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOTAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY. TH ERE IS NO SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS FUNCTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. THE WITHDRAWALS ARE REASONABLE, WHICH ARE HIGHER THAN WITHDRAWAL MADE IN A .Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE TOTAL WITHD RAWALS WERE MADE BY ITA NO. 233/JP/2014 ACIT VS. ASHA MANDOWRA 12 THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS AT RS. 7,68,607 /-, WHICH WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE WITHDRAWALS MADE IN PRECEDING TWO YEAR S. THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED MUCH MORE THAN THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HER. DURING TH E YEAR, THERE IS NO SOCIAL/RELIGIOUS FUNCTION. BOTH THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A) HAD NOT CONT ROVERTED BY THE LD DR. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/06/2016 SD/- SD/- DQYHKKJR VH-VKJ-EHUK (KUL BHARAT) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03 RD JUNE, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SMT. ASHA MANDOWRA, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 233/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR