Shri Dineshchandra C. Thakkar, Dist.Panchmahals V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2, Godhra

ITA 281/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1949 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: H V GANDHI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : D BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HONBLE SH RI D.C. AGRAWAL, A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 281/AHD./2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-2003 SHRI DINESHCHANDRA C. THAKKAR, PANCHMAHALS -VS.- INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, GODHRA (P.A. NO. ABEPT 1509 L) (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.V. GANDHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GOVIND SINGH, SR . D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2006 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, BARODA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THIS APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 3. GROUND NO. 2 OF THIS APPEAL IS AS UNDER :_ THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HA S ALSO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE GENUINENESS OF DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,16,500/- WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE A.O. W HILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OF THE DEPOSITORS. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT THERE WERE TOTAL 22 DEPOSITORS. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,16,500/- IN RESPECT OF 16 NUMBER OF DEPOSITORS CONSIDERING AS NON-GENUINE AND IN THE IM PUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE SAME. IN RESPECT OF REMAINING DEPOSITORS, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADD ITION. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE 16 DEPOSITORS ARE IDENTIFI ABLE. THEY ARE LIVING IN SMALL VILLAGE HAVING MEANS TO EARN THE INCOME. SOME OF THEM ARE AGRICULT URISTS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI H.V. GANDHI, LD. CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THESE 16 DEPOSITOR S, WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- (1) THAKKAR TUSHARBHAI M. RS.6,000/- :- THE LD. A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.17,500/- STATING THAT THE DEPOSITOR WAS SALARIED PERSON AND OUT OF HIS SALARY HE WAS DEPOSITED RS.17,500/- WITH THE ASSESSEE AND NO CONFIRMATION OR PROOF OF SALARY HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THE LD. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS HELD THAT RS.11,500/- OUT OF RS.17,500/- WAS OPENING BALANCE AND HENCE HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.11,500/- AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE OF RS.6,000/- . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)S O RDER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE DEPOSITOR ATTENDED THE I.T. OFFICE AND GAVE CONFIRM ATION. IT IS STATED IN CONFIRMATION THAT HE WAS SERVING WITH THE ASSESSEE WHO IS SON OF UNCLE OF THE DEPOSITOR. THE SALARY WAS FIXED RS.500/- PER MONTH. THE APPELLANT WAS CREDITING THE SALARY IN BOOKS IN THE NAME OF DEPOSITOR AND HE WAS NOT GIVIN G CASH. HE WAS 34 YEARS AND LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT AND CO PY OF RATION CARD HAVE ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED. HE HAS CONFIRMED THE DEPOSIT. (2) ABHESINGH SHANKARBHAI RS.15,000/- :- THE DEPOSITOR ATTENDED THE OFFICE AND HAS GIVEN CONFIRMATION. HIS SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM AG RICULTURAL AND TAILORING WORK. COPY OF RATION CARD HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN. FORM NO. 1 0 REGARDING PROOF OF PAYING MAHESUL TAX HAS ALSO BEEN FILED. THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS ALSO PRODUCED. THUS, THE IDENTITY CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITOR ARE ESTABLISHED AND SO IT CAN NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/ S. 68. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITIONS AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. (3) ALSING MUSABHAI (JALABHAI) RS.15,000/- :_ (4) KANUBHAI NARSINGBHAI RS.15,200/- :- (5) NAVALSINGH RAMSINGH RS.12,000/- IN ALL THE THREE DEPOSITORS, THE COPY OF RATION CAR D/ IDENTITY PROOF AND THE COPY OF THE FORM NO. 8A/ FORM NO. 7/12 AS A PROOF FOR THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF THE DEPOSITORS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITT ED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DEPOSITORS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS HOLDING THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAVE VERY SMA LL AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THEY HAVE TO DISCHARGE SOCIAL OBLIGATION. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THEY ARE TOTALLY ILLITERATE AND THEY ARE VERY SMALL PERSONS. THEY HAVE NO SOCIAL OBLIGATION. THE AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCTS USED BY THEM PARTLY AND PARTLY THEY ARE SELLING. THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING I S ALSO VERY LOWER. LOOKING TO ALL THESE ASPECTS, THE TRANSACTIONS MAY KINDLY BE CONSI DERED AS GENUINE. 3 (6) BALSINGH GHEMABHAI RS.11,000/- : THE DEPOSITOR IS ILLITERATE AND HENCE HE HAD PUT HIS THUMB IMPRESSION ON CONFIRMATION WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. A.O. THE RELEVANT IDENTITY PROOF AND INCOME PROOF WERE S UBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). THE P ROOF OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE LAND IS N OT IN HIS NAME BECAUSE OF THE PRACTICE IN HIS LOCALITY AND ONLY THE ELDER PERSON S NAME IS THERE. (7) RUPSINGH MOTIBHAI RS.12,500/- : THE CONFIRMATION AND PROOF REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FORM NO. 8A WERE SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE A.O. BUT THE A.O. HAS MENTIONED THAT NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECA USE OF EARNING MEAGER INCOME. ALL THE MAJOR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE WORKING IN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND THEY ARE LIVING VERY SIMPLE LIFE AND SO THE DEPOSIT IS GENUINE. (8 TO 16) SHRI MAHENDRABHAI VITHALBHAI AND 8 OTHER DEPOSITORS RS.1,19,800/- : (AS PER ANNEXURE A) : IN ALL THE CASES, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED TH E CONFIRMATION OF THE DEPOSITORS AND HAS PROVED THEIR IDENTITY BY SUB MITTING THE IDENTITY/ ADDRESS PROOF. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE RELEVAN T INCOME P ROOF OF THE DEPOSITORS IN THE FORM NO. 7/12 AND / OR OTHER DOCUMENTS. THE A.O. HAD NEITHER ASKED FOR ANY OTHER EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITORS NOR HAS IS SUED ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT FOR TREATING THE AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS AS UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,19,800/- IN THE MANNER STATED HEREUNDER :- IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OR HAD SAVINGS OF EARLIE R YEARS WHICH COULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THE DEPOSIT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES THESE DEPOSITS TOTALING OF RS.1,19,800/- ARE HELD TO BE N ON GENUINE AND ADDITION OF RS.1,19,800/- IS CONFIRMED. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)S O RDER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED EVERYTHING EITHER AT THE STAGE OF A.O. OR AT THE STAGE OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(APPEALS). THE MOST OF THE DEPOSITORS ARE CASTE BY KOLI (AIVAS I OF DIST. PANCHMAHALAS). THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING IS VERY LOW . THEY ARE NOT BELIEVING IN BANKING ACTIVITIES. MOST OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE WORKING AS KHET MAJOR. THEY HAVE NOT TO PURCHASE GRAIN. THE Y ARE USING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FOR THEMSELVES AND BALANCE IS SELLING IN THE MARKET. THEY SAVE THE MONEY WITH THEM ONLY AND NOT PUT IN B ANK. THE CONFIRMATION WERE GIVEN, CREDITWORTHINESS ALSO PROV ED AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ALSO GENUINE. THE DEPOSITORS ARE A LSO GETTING INTEREST ON DEPOSIT. THE A.O. HAS ALSO ALLOWED INTEREST ON DEPO SITS. SO THE CASH CREDIT IS GENUINE. THE ONUS IS ON APPELLANT TO PROVE THE C ASH CREDIT IS GENUINE. THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED THE DE3POSITORS AND HAS GIVEN THE CONFIRMATION AN HAS ALSO GIVEN THE PROOF REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME LIKE 7/12 UTARA, 8A FORM ETC. THEY HAVE ALSO GIVEN THE COPY OF RATION CARD FOR PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION. THUS THE INITIAL BURDE N WAS DISCHARGED AS PER HON'BLE SUPREME COURT S DECISION IN THE CASE OF SR EELEKHA BANERJEE VS.- 4 CIT 49 ITR 112. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT MADE FURTHER ATTEMPT TO EXAMINE SOURCE OF CREDITORS. THE APPELLANT PRODUCING IDENTI TY OF DEPOSITORS AND THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. SO ACCORDING TO HON'BLE RAJAST HAN H.C. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.- SHREE BARKHA SYNTHETICS LTD. ADDITION U/S. 68 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE DEPOSITORS HAVE SHOWN THE SOURCE O F INCOME AND HENCE THE APPELLANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOWN THE SOURCE O F THE SOURCE AS PER HON'BLE GUJARAT H.C.S DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS.- ROHINI BUILDERS 256 ITR 36. THEREFORE, IT IS HUMBLY REQUESTED TO DE LETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68. 5.1. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS NOT ACCEPTAB LE BECAUSE EITHER AT THE STAGE OF A.O. OR AT THE STAGE OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS), ALL THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. MOST OF THE DEPOSITORS ARE CASTE BY KOLI (ADAVASI OF D ISTRICT PANCHMAHALAS). THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING IS VERY LOW. THEY ARE NOT BELIEVING IN BANKING ACTI VITIES. MOST OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE WORKING AS KHET MAJUR. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PURCHASE GRAIN BECAUSE THEY ARE USING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FOR THEMSELVES AND BALANCE IS SOLD IN THE MARKET. WHATEVER MONEY IS SAVED BY THEM IS NOT KEPT IN THE BANK. THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE CRED ITORS WERE FURNISHED. ALL THE DEPOSITORS WERE GIVEN INTEREST, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISALLOWED BY TH E A.O. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHENEVER POSSIBLE, THE DEPOSITORS WE RE PRODUCED AND THEY HAVE GIVEN THE CONFIRMATION AND HAS ALSO GIVEN THE PROOF REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME LIKE 7/12 UTARA, 8A FORM ETC. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS.- ROHINI BUILDERS [256 ITR 36] AND CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,16,500/- IN RESPECT OF 16 CREDITORS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) BE DELETED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI GOVIND SINGH, LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF 9 DEPOSITORS AND CONFIRMED ONLY IN RE SPECT OF 16 DEPOSITORS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE HAVING ANY OTHER SOU RCES OF INCOME OR HAD SAVINGS OF EARLIER YEARS WHICH COULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THE DEPOSITS. THE LD. D. R. SUBMITTED THAT THESE 16 DEPOSITORS WERE NOT HAVING THE CAPACITY TO DEPOSIT. THEREFORE, THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.2,16,500/- IS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED. WITH REGARD TO NON-DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, THE LD . D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THROUGH OVERSIGHT, THE INTEREST IS NOT DISALLOWED. THEREFORE, THE MERE FAC T THAT THE INTEREST IS NOT DISALLOWED IS NO GROUND TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF UNPROVED DEPOSITS IN RESPECT OF 16 DEPOSITORS. 5 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST TO ALL THE 16 DEPOSITORS. THE INTEREST HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE A.O. NONE OF THE D EPOSITORS WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT. LOOKING TO THE SMALL PLACE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE AND DEPOSI TORS BELONGED, IT APPEARS THAT THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS OF RS.3,02,080/- WAS SUSTAI NED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS ON DOUBT AND SUSPICION. IT IS PERTI NENT TO NOTE THAT BOTH THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES BELOW IGNORED THAT INTEREST PAID TO ALL THE CREDITORS IS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,16,500/- SUSTAI NED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF 16 DEPOSITORS IS HEREBY CANCELLED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 3 OF THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMIN G THE DEPRECIATION ON MARUTI CAR PURCHASED ON 26.03.2002 IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVA NT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 9. THE FACT RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.26,177/- ON MARUTI CAR, WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN MARCH, 2002 BUT THE R.C. BOOK WAS ISSU ED ON 2.4.2003. ACCORDING TO A.O, THIS CAR WAS NOT USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IN THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND, THEREFORE, HE DENIED TO GRANT DEPRECIA TION. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CAR WAS PUT TO USE BECAUSE PETROL WAS ALRE ADY AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF TAKING DELIVERY OF THE CAR. THE DELIVERY OF THE CAR WAS TAKEN ON 27.03 .2002 FROM UNCLE-IN-LAWS SHOP IN BOMBAY. AFTER TAKING THE DELIVERY, THE CAR WAS BROUGHT TO P ANCHMAHALS. IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, THE CAR WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE CA R IS PURCHASED, POSSESSION IS TAKEN, IT IS RUN FROM BOMBAY TO JAMBUGHODA, SO IT IS USED FOR BUSINE SS. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING DECISION, T HE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION :- (I) MYSORE MINERALS LTD. VS.- CIT [106 TAXATION 1 66] (SUPREME COURT); (II) GEO TECH CONSULTANT COR. [244 ITR 452] (KERAL A HIGH COURT); (III) WHITTLE ANDERSON LTD. VS.- CIT [79 ITR 613] (BOMBAY HIGH COURT); (IV) CAPITAL BUS SERVICE PVT. LTD. VS.- CIT [123 ITR 404] (DELHI HIGH COURT). 6 10. SHRI GOVIND SINGH, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND CONTENDED T HAT SINCE NO PETROL WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CAR WAS USED F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 11. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT APPEARS THAT WHEN THE DELIVERY OF THE CAR WAS TAKEN, I.E. ON 27.03.2002, SUFFICIENT PETROL WAS AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT THE CAR FRO M BOMBAY TO JAMBUGHODA AND GOT IT REGISTERED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2002. IN THESE CI RCUMSTANCES, WE FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION. WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AT THE RAT E PRESCRIBED IN THE INCOME TAX RULES. 12. THE LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.29,000/-. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.33,358/-. THE A.O. ESTIMATED THE EXP ENSES AT RS.10,000/- PER MONTH AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.86,642/-. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.10,000/- P ER MONTH MADE BY THE A.O. IS EXCESSIVE, THEREFORE, HE REDUCED THE SAME TO RS.7,500/- PER MO NTH AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.19,500/- BY THE FATHER AND BY THE MOTHER OF RS.2 4,000/-, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.29 ,000/-. 14. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE VILLAGE JAMBUGHODA (IN PANCHMAHALS DISTRICT) IS VERY SMALL. THE HOUSE IS O WNED BY ASSESSEES FATHER. THERE WAS NO LAVISH EXPENSES ON MOVIE, HOTELS, ETC. THEREFORE, T HE WITHDRAWALS OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, I.E. RS.76,858/- (RS.33,358/- + RS.19,500/- + RS.24,000/-) WAS QUITE SUFFICIENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29, 000/- BE DELETED. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT AFTER THE RELI EF ALLOWED BY THE A.O., THE ADDITION OF 7 RS.29,000/- IS FAIR AND REASONABLE, THEREFORE, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) BE UPHELD. 16. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE CONSIDERED. LOOKING TO T HE FAMILY STATUS, NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY, ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.7, 500/- PER MONTH MADE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS FAIR AND REA SONABLE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF WITHDRAWAL MADE BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE. TH IS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31.12.2009 SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGRAWAL) (T.K. SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 31 / 12 / 2009 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE DEPARTMENT 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED; (4) CIT CONCERNED, (5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.