M/s. Loknath Ratho, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 267/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57917 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ANITA SUMANTH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Salary income; Assessment record; Revised return
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 267/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 SHRI LOKNATH RATHO, OLD NO. 2/281, NEW NO. 2/354, AGS COLONY, KOTTIVAKKAM, THIRUVANMIYUR, CHENNAI-600 041. V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-II(1), CHENNAI. (PAN: AABPR2400C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 09-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 0/02/2012 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-III, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.360/06-07/A-III DATED 16-12-2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. DR. ANITA SUMANTH, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THERE WERE TWO ISSUES IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE FIRST ONE BEING AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION REPRESENTI NG THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TO AN EXTENT OF ` 9 LAKHS FROM 7 PERSONS. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMIS SION THAT THE SECOND ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF ` 2 LAKHS OUT OF AN AMOUNT OF ` 3 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWINGS. IT WAS SUBMITT ED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS A BACHELOR AND IS DERIVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ON A PERUSAL OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF ` 9 LAKHS ON VARIOUS DATES. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD GIVEN A LIST OF 7 PERSONS WHO HAD GIFTED THE AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LIST OF THE DONORS WAS AVAILABLE IN PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DONORS WERE NOT RELATED TO THE A SSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED LETTERS TO TH E DONORS ASKING FOR VARIOUS DETAILS ON 08-03-2006 REQUESTING THE DONORS TO FURN ISH THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE, SOURCE OF INCOME AND ANNUAL INCOME DETAIL S ON OR BEFORE 20-03-2006. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE DONORS HAD NOT RESPO NDED TO THE LETTERS TILL THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, I.E. ON 29-03 -2006. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 3 HAD VERIFIED THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND HAD FOUND T HAT ALL THE DONORS HAD RESPONDED TO THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER VI DE LETTERS DATED 30 TH AND 31 ST , MARCH, 2006. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LETTER S HAD BEEN SENT BY THE DONORS WHEREIN THE DONORS HAD GIVEN THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR, BEING THE SOURCE OF THE GIFTS, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE, COPIES O F THE BANK ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH THE GIFTS HAD BEEN GIVEN, COPIES OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT AND COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOMES. THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO VARIOUS EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVE D WAS 2003-04. THE RETURNS OF ALL THE DONORS HAD BEEN FILED MUCH BEFOR E THE INITIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS BY AN ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) ON 23-11-2004. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AFTER EXAMIN ING ALL THE EVIDENCES AS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE LEARNED CIT(A) TOOK THE VIEW THAT IT IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL FOR THE PERSONS WHO HAD GIVEN THE GIFTS TO HAVE GIVEN SUCH A GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBM ISSION THAT SECTION 68 OF THE ACT REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ENTRI ES OF CASH CREDITS IN HIS BOOKS REGARDING THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF TO THE SATI SFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE EVIDEN CES CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 4 OFFICER HAD BEEN PRODUCED AND THERE WAS NOTHING FUR THER CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND AS T HE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS PLACED UPON HIM TO PROVE THE SOURCE AND NA TURE OF THE ENTRIES OF THE SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS, NO ADD ITION WAS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 4. IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF DRAWINGS IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHO WN DRAWINGS OF ` 54,420/- APART FROM THE RENT FOR THE HOUSE WHICH HE HAS PAID THROUGH CHEQUES AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN AWAY FROM THE HEADQUARTERS FOR 76 DAYS. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES SISTER WAS ALSO STAYING WITH HIM AT THE RELEVANT TIME ALONG WITH HER CHILDREN AS HER HUSBAND WAS POSTED OVERSEAS AND A PERUSAL OF HER BANK ACCOUNT SHOWED T HAT SHE HAD BEEN REGULARLY DRAWING CASH OF ABOUT ` 56,000/- PER MONTH FOR THE PERSONAL EXPENSES. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSTANTIAL LY TRAVELING, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS A BACHELOR AND THE ASSESSEES SISTER WAS STAYIN G WITH HIM AND SHE WAS TAKING CARE OF THE FOOD AND OTHER EXPENSES, NO FURT HER ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE DRAWINGS WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 2 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF THE DRAWINGS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 5. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. P. MOH ANAKALA REPORTED IN 291 ITR I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 5 278 (SC) AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF MANGILAL JAIN V. ITO, REPORTED IN 315 I TR 105 (MAD), THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ALLEGED GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ISSUE OF GIFT DID NOT APPEAR TO BE A GENUINE AFFAIR AND THAT THE DONORS WERE ALL FROM MEAGRE MEANS AND IT DID NOT AP PEAR TO BE A SOUND PROPOSITION THAT THEY WOULD HAVE GIVEN ALMOST HALF OF THEIR SHARES AS GIFTS TO THE PERSON WHO IS NOT EVEN BLOOD RELATED. IT WAS THE SU BMISSION THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE L IABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 6. IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION REPRESENTING THE DRAWI NGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN DRAWINGS OF ` 54,420/- WHICH WAS VERY MEAGRE FOR A PERSON WHO IS SHOWING A TAXABLE I NCOME OF NEARLY ` 29 LAKHS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 7. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF THE ADDITION OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WAS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MS. MAYAWATI REPORTED IN 243 CTR 9 (DEL) AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. OASIS HOSPITALITIES (P) LTD., REPORTED IN 333 ITR 119. TO THIS THE LEARNED DR RE PLIED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MS. MAYAWAT I WAS NOT APPLICABLE INSOFAR I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 6 AS THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WAS A POLITICIAN WHO HAD TO WARDS HOME PEOPLE DOING SUBSTANTIAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. IT WAS THE SUBMISS ION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HE WAS A BACHELOR AND NOTHING WAS SHOW N TO SHOW THAT THE DONORS HAD ANY LOVE AND AFFECTION TOWARDS HIM. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF OASIS HOSPITALITIES (P) LTD. WAS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE INSOFAR AS THE ISSUE WAS IN REGARD TO SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGE 3 SHOWS THAT ALL THE 7 DONOR S HAVE RESPONDED TO THE LETTER SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS FACT RE MAINS UNDISPUTED. FURTHER A PERUSAL OF THE LETTERS FILED BY THE DONORS SHOWS TH AT THEY HAVE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FOR THE GIFTS, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASS ESSEE AND THEY HAVE ENCLOSED THE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS FROM WHICH GIFTS HA VE BEEN GIVEN AS ALSO THE COPIES OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS WITH THE ACKNOWLED GEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE COPIES OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND THEIR INCOM E STATEMENTS. A PERUSAL OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILE D BY THE PERSONS SHOWS THAT ALL THESE RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED MUCH BEFORE THE I NITIATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE ACKNOWLEDG EMENT OF THE RETURNS FILED ALSO SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE ENCLOSED THE BALANCE SHEE T AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WITH THEIR RETURNS. A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND VERY FEW CASH TRANSACTIONS. A I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 7 PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEETS FILED CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT THEY HAVE RECORDED THE GIFT HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNT. A FURTHER COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE VARIO US DONORS ALSO SHOWS THAT ALL THE RETURNS WERE NOT FILED ON THE SAME DAY AND IN S OME CASES THE RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED ON 03-11-2003, 31-03-2004, 29-03-2005 ET C. A FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE RETURNS SHOWS THAT ALL THE DONORS ARE ASSESSED IN C ALCUTTA. THEY HAVE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THEY ARE NOT NEW ASSE SSEES. A PERUSAL OF THE RETURNS FILED ALSO CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE RETURNS ARE ORIGINAL RETURNS FILED AND NOT REVISED RETURNS ALSO. THUS WHAT IS NOTICED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED LETTERS TO THE DONORS. THE DONORS HAD RESPONDED TO THE LETTERS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAD GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS. T HIS EVIDENCE AS IT WAS NOTICED WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. T HE BENCH HAD EXPRESSED A VIEW AS TO WHY THIS ISSUE MUST NOT BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY FURTHER VERIFICATION WHICH THE ASSESSING OF FICER MIGHT DESIRE, TO WHICH PROPOSITION THE LEARNED DR HAD VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED B Y SUBMITTING THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P. MOHANAKALA, REFERRED TO SUPRA, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE WAS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. AS THERE IS RESISTANCE IN REGARD TO THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE ISSUE FOR ANY FURTHER EXAMINATION, IT WAS DECIDED TO ADJUDICA TE ON THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES AS AVAILABLE. A PERUSAL OF THE DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 8 COURT IN THE CASE OF P. MOHANAKA, REFERRED TO SUPRA , SHOWS THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE EXPLA NATION OFFERED WAS NOT SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT THE DON OR WAS TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION. IT WAS ON THIS MATERIAL BEING THE EV IDENCE THAT THE DONOR HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T HAD UPHELD THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED WAS NOT SATISFACTORY AND THE REMITTANCES RECEIVED FROM FOREIGN PLACES BY BANK IN STRUMENTS WAS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO REBUT THE EVIDENCES AS PLACED BY THE DONORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, IN THIS CASE EVEN A PRESUMPTION OF AN AFTER-THOUGHT CA NNOT BE DRAWN INSOFAR AS EXCEPT FOR ONE CASE WHERE A RETURN WAS FILED IN MAR CH, 2005, ALL OTHER RETURNS OF THE DONORS WERE FILED MUCH BEFORE EVEN THE INITIATI ON OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RETUR NS FILED BY THE DONORS ALSO CONTAINED THE BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWED THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS FOR THE DONORS AS ALSO THE RECOGNITION OF THE GIFT HAVING BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEETS. FURTHER THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE DONORS WHEN EXAMIN ED DID NOT SHOW CASH TRANSACTIONS BUT WERE CLEAR REMITTANCES SUPPORTING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE DONORS REGARDING THEIR SOURCES OF THE FUNDS. IN SH ORT, THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 9 BY THE DONORS NOT ONLY PROVED THE SOURCE OF THE ASS ESSEE BUT ALSO THE SOURCE OF THE DONORS. NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN P RODUCED BY THE REVENUE. 9. A PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANGILAL JAIN, REFERRED TO SUPRA, SHOWS THA T THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT MERE PROOF OF IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR OR THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS GIVEN BY CHEQUE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADDRES SES OF THE DONORS AND IT IS ON THE VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE DONORS RESPONDED AND GAVE ALL THE EVIDENCES AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT EVIDENCE CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ONCE AN EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE REVENUE AND SUCH EVIDENCE IS FOUND TO BE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, SUCH EVIDENCE CANNOT BE WISHED AWAY BY PRESUMPTIONS AND PROBABILITIES EVEN IF SUCH DONORS ARE NOT BLOOD RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 8 OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION IN REGARD TO TH E SUM FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GI VE AN EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN THE O PINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION. THIS E XPLANATION HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE TRUE AS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCES CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOW TO TURN AROUND AND SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE IS NOT SATISFACTORY WITHOUT SHOWING I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 10 THAT THE EVIDENCES ARE FALSE, CANNOT BE UPHELD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE FROM THE 7 DONORS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES AS PLACED . CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT STANDS DELETED. 10. IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF DRAWINGS, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A) THAT HE IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, THAT HE IS A BACH ELOR, THAT HE HAS BEEN TRAVELING AND AWAY FROM THE HEADQUARTERS FOR OVER 7 6 DAYS AND THAT HIS SISTER ALONG WITH HER SCHOOL-GOING CHILDREN WERE STAYING W ITH HIM AND SHE WAS MAKING REGULAR DRAWINGS OF CASH OF ` 56,000/- PER MONTH. OBVIOUSLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS TRAVELING ON BUSINESS PURPOSES ON THE ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY, HIS EXPENSES DURING HIS TRAVEL WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY BORNE BY T HE COMPANY. THE RENT FOR HIS PREMISES IS PAID THROUGH CHEQUES AND HE HAS BEEN US ING HIS CREDIT CARDS FOR HIS PERSONAL EXPENSES LIKE CLOTHES, DINING ETC. THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEES SISTER WAS STAYING WITH HIM AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME IS NOT DISPUTED. SO ALSO THE FACT THAT THE SISTER WAS HAVING DRAWINGS OF ` 56,000/- PER MONTH. ONCE THIS IS SO, OBVIOUSLY WHEN THERE IS A LADY AT HOME, THE COO KING OF FOOD, WASHING OF CLOTHES ETC. WOULD BE LOOKED AFTER BY THE LADY OF T HE HOUSE, BEING HIS SISTER. IT IS OF OTHER EXPENSES WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE BORNE BY T HE INDIVIDUAL FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN DRAWINGS OF ` 54,420/-. FURTHER OTHER THAN SAYING THAT THE I.T.A. NO.267/MDS/2009 11 ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPENSES LIKE ELECTRICITY CHA RGES, SALARY TO SERVANTS, ETC. FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TO WITHDRAW MONEY FROM THE B ANK, THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES SISTER WAS STAYING WITH THE ASSESSEE WOULD COVER SUCH EXPENSES, ESPECI ALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TRAVELING. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE DRAWINGS IS LIABLE TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOTHING HAS BEEN SHOWN TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE ON HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT WHICH IS UNEXPL AINED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION OF ` 2 LAKHS AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCO UNT OF THE LOW DRAWINGS STANDS DELETED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10/02/ 2012. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE