Swati Gandhi, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(5), Baroda

ITA 2545/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67757 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., BEFORE SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !./ I.T.A.NO.2545/AHD/2011 ( # $%# # $%# # $%# # $%# / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SWATI Y. GANDHI 204, BELL E VISTA RACE COURSE CIRCLE BARODA / VS. THE ITO WARD-2(5) BARODA & !./' !./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACDPG 3756 C ( &( / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) &( + / APPELLANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) )*&( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.D.R. -$. , /0 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2013 12% , /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2013 3 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-V, BARODA DATED 30/08/2011 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ESTIMATE BASIS OF RS.1,58,985/-. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIO N AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS A MARRIED W OMAN AND HER HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ARE MET BY HER HUSBAND. YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. BEING UNWARRANTED AND UNCALLED FOR AN THEREFORE IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE THE SAME BE DELETED. ITA NO.2545/AHD /2011 SWATI Y.GANDHI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 2 - 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COULD NOT FURNISH THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDEN CES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SIZE AND ST ATUS OF THE FAMILY AS ALSO THE LIVING COST OF THE CITY WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING WITH HER CHILDREN, ESTIMATED RS.15,000/- PER MONTH AS HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,58,985/- (I.E. RS.15,000 X 12 = RS.1,80,000 LESS RS.21,015/-). THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION O F THE AO. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND, THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION, AFTER HE ARING THE LD.DR OF THE REVENUE. 3.1. THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND ALS O BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT WA RRANTED SINCE THE SAME IS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION ONLY. THE ASSESSEE IS A MARRIED WOMAN AND THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE BEING MET WITH BY HER HU SBAND AND HER FATHER-IN-LAW. THE TOTAL CASH WITHDRAWAL OF THE FA MILY ARE RS.1 LAC, WHICH ARE OVER AND ABOVE RS.21,015/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED THE BALANCE-SHEET IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM BEFORE TH E LD.CIT(A). THE CHILDREN WERE OF THE AGE OF NINE YEARS AND THREE YE ARS. THERE IS NO HOUSE RENT AS THE PREMISES WERE OWNED BY THE FAMILY. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.DR OF THE REVENUE RELIED U PON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO.2545/AHD /2011 SWATI Y.GANDHI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 3 - 5. I HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND PERUSED THE WRITTEN S UBMISSION ASSESSEE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED EXPLANATION THAT THE TOTAL W ITHDRAWAL OF THE FAMILY ARE MORE THAN RS.1 LAC AND THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE SMALL HAVING AGE OF NINE YEARS AND THREE YEARS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO LIABILITY OF PAYING THE RENT SINCE THEY ARE STAYING IN THE HOUSE OWNED BY THEIR FAMILY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE BALANCE-SHEET IN SUP PORT OF HER CLAIM. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAVING SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE NO T FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. MOREOVER, THE ASSUMPTION MA DE BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE ON ASSUMPTION AND ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ESTIMATION CANNOT BE ON CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO AND, A CCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION SO MADE IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE SD/- ( .. ) ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 09 /2013 60.., $.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.2545/AHD /2011 SWATI Y.GANDHI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2006-07 - 4 - 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*&( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! / -9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. -9() / THE CIT(A)-V, BARODA 5. 7$:; )/ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<# =. / GUARD FILE. 3- 3- 3- 3- / BY ORDER, *7/ )/ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / ! ! ! ! ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR)S , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 18.9.13 (DICTATION-PAD 6 PAGES ATTACHED WITH THE FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.9.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER