Ramesh Chand Prop., Narnaul V. ITO, Ward- 2, Narnaul

ITA 2980/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6749 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: SIDDHARTH MITTAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Set aside
• Section: 133(6); 69B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 RAMESH CHAND PROP. M/S BHAKTAWAR MAL BHAWANI SAHAY, NAI MANDI, NARNAUL, HARYANA. AANPC5095N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, NARNAUL, HARYANA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI SIDDHARTH MITTAL, ADVOCATE FOR REVENUE : SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 .07 .201 9 DA TE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08 .201 9 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-ROHTAK DATED 15.02.2019 F OR AY 2014-15. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 3. ON GROUND NO. 1, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 25,66,790/- U/S 69B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFER ENCE IN STOCK STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE BANK. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT ASSESSE E FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.11.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. 5,71,950/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER AS WELL AS GP RATIO AS COMPARED TO THE PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION FRO M MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO FURNI SH DETAILS REGARDING THE STOCK/ASSETS HYPOTHECATED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR OBTAINING LOANS/CC LIMIT AND TO SUPPLY THE BANK STA TEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. THE STOCK STATEMENT REVEALE D THAT ON 28.02.2014 STOCK WAS DECLARED AT RS. 2,23,86,350/- WHICH IS DULY VERIFIED BY THE BANK. HOWEVER, AS PER BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2014 THE STOCK STATEMENT WAS AT RS. 1,88,1 7,001/-. THE AO AFTER CALLING EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D CONSIDERING THE GP RATE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 25 ,66,790/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN STOCK. 3 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BANK FACILITY FROM PNB, NARNAUL AND FOR GETTING HIGHER CREDIT, IT IS A COMMON PRACTICE TO FURNISH THE STOCK STATEMENT TO T HE BANK BY ESTIMATE AND NOT THE ACTUAL STOCK. THE ASSESSEE DID THE SAME AND FURNISHED STOCK STATEMENT AS ON 28.02.2014 ON ESTIMATE BASIS TO THE BANK. FIGURES FURNISHED TO T HE BANK WERE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND NOT ON ACTUAL BASIS. FU RTHER, THE BANK OFFICIALS HAD ALSO NOT VERIFIED THE PHYSICAL S TOCK AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE NOR VALUE THE STOCK AS ON 28.02.2014. THE STOCK WAS NOT UNDER LOCK AND KEY O F THE BANK. THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN GOVERNMENT CONTR OL ITEMS LIKE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS AND SOME ARE SUBJECT ED TO PHYSICAL VERIFICATION BY THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT . THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK ON 31.03.2014 SHOWS CLOSING STOCK AT RS. 1,88,17,001/- WHICH FIGURE TALLY WITH THE STOCK STATEMENT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE. THE STOCK VALUE AS PER THE STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE B ANK AS ON 31.03.2014 TALLIES WITH THE VALUES OF STOCK AS PER AUDITED 4 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. AS ON 28.02.2014 THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT COMPLETED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS RE QUIRED BY THE BANK TO FURNISH THE STOCK STATEMENT TO CONTI NUE HIS BANK FACILITY AND, AS SUCH, STOCK STATEMENT ON ESTI MATE WAS FURNISHED ON 28.02.2014. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ARE DULY AUDITED BY CHARTERED A CCOUNTANT AS REQUIRED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND THESE BOOKS HAV E BEEN ACCEPTED BY AO. THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE GP RATE IS BETTER AS COMPARED TO PRE CEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE VALUE OF THE STOCK FURNISHED TO THE BANK AS ON 31.03.2014 TALLIES WITH THE AUDITED BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE AO ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FAC TS OF THE CASE BECAUSE FACTS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THE AO W AS HAVING ONLY THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STOCK STATEMENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK. THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE POSSESSED STOCKS AS REFLECTED IN THE SAID STATEMENT AS AGAINST THE STOCKS DEPICTED IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET. AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE MAINTENAN CE OF THE 5 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DECISI ON OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIDHU RICE & GENERAL MILLS, 281 ITR 428 IN WHICH IT WAS H ELD AS UNDER: THAT EXCEPT FOR THE PHOTO COPY OF THE STOCK STATEM ENT FURNISHED TO THE BANK, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO T BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE POSSESSED STOCKS AS REFLECTED IN THE SAID STATEMENT AS AGAINST THE STOCKS DEPICTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REGULARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THIS COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUN AL WERE BASED ON RECORD AND NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN SUCH A CASE. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE PUN JAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI BHAR AT BHUSHAN SURI (HUF) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDG MENT AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, THE HON BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. N. SWAMY, 241 ITR 363 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 4. WE FIND IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH THO SE OBSERVATIONS. THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF 6 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 THE MATERIAL WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AND ORDINARILY NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE GIVEN TO A THIRD PARTY UNLESS THERE IS MATERIAL TO CORROBORATE THAT STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE GIVEN TO A THIRD PARTY, EVEN IF IT BE A BANK. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUCH A STATEMENT BY ITSELF CANNOT BE TREATED AS HAVING RESULTED IN AN IRREBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS ON THE REVENUE. THAT BURDEN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DISCHARGED BY MERELY REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO A THIRD PARTY IN CONNECTION WITH A TRANSACTION WHICH WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT AND MAKING THAT THE SOLE FOUNDATION FOR A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSED HIS INCOME. 5. THAT THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE INCOME SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IS WITHIN THE TAXING PROVISIONS AND THERE WAS IN FACT INCOME, ARE PROPOSITIONS WHICH ARE WELL SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PARIMISETTI SEETHARAMAMMA VS. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 WHICH REITERATES THESE PROPOSITIONS. 7. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR FACT S FOR AY 2013-14 LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESS EE, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.04.2017 (PB-12). THE ASSESSEE, THER EFORE, PLEADED THAT ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 8. LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT INFORMATION FROM MANAGE R PNB WAS OBTAINED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WHICH SHOWS THAT STOCK ON 7 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 28.02.2014 WAS DECLARED AT RS. 2,23,86,350/- AND IT WAS VERIFIED BY THE BANK. THE REPLY OF THE BANK DATED 28.11.2016 IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A ), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT BANK OFFICIALS HAD DULY CHECK ED AND VERIFIED THE STOCK. THEREFORE, CONTENTION OF ASSES SEE WAS REJECTED THAT STOCK STATEMENT WAS SUBMITTED MERELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 9. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSI ONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-8 WHICH IS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ENDING 31.03.2014 IN WHI CH VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 1,88,17,001/-. PB-11 IS BANK CERTIFICATE DATED 30.01.2019 IN WHICH BANK HAS CERTIFIED THAT AS PER VALUE OF THE STOCK AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2014 HELD ON THE RECORD OF THE BANK IS RS. 1,88,17,001/-. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AUDITED ACCOU NTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. PB-12 IS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 25.04.2017 IN WHICH ON THIS IDENTICAL ISSUE L D. CIT(A) 8 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION FOR AY 2013-14 FOLLOWI NG THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIDHU RICE & GENERAL MILLS (SUP RA). LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE RELIED UPON JUDGMENT OF THE HO NBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KHAN & SIROHI STEEL ROLLING MILLS, 200 CTR 595 IN WHICH IT WAS HE LD AS UNDER: TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING PRAC TICE, THE VALUE OF STOCK HYPOTHECATED TO BANK WAS INFLATE D TO AVAIL OF MORE OVERDRAFT FACILITIES AND DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STOCK SHOWN TO BANK AND THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF JAMMU & KAS HMIR HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR VS. INCOME TA X OFFICER, 201 CTR 178 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLOSING STOCK DECLARED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT AND THE STOCK SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK AS THE STOCK POSITION SHOWN TO THE BANK WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND INFLATED VALUE WAS SHOWN TO AVAI L MORE CREDIT FROM BANK. 9 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION IS WHOLL Y UNJUSTIFIED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT CERTIFICATE OF THE BANK (PB-11) IS ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECI FIC DEFECT IN MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSES SEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REJ ECTED BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT THE TURNOVER AND GP RATIO IS BETTER IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS COMPAR ED TO PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO MADE THE ADDITIO N BECAUSE THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK O N 28.02.2014 SHOWS EXCESS STOCK IN THIS STATEMENT. T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE INFO RMATION PROVIDED BY THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VIDE LETTER DA TED 10 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 28.11.2016, COPY OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPU GNED ORDER. IN THIS REPLY THE BANK HAS STATED THAT DUE TO RENOVATION OF THE BRANCH THE FILE CONTAINING STOCK STATEMENT O F ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS NOT TRACEABLE AT PR ESENT. HOWEVER, AS PER BANKING PRACTICE WHENEVER THE PARTY SUBMITTED STOCK STATEMENT SAME IS CHECKED/VERIFIED BY THE BANK OFFICIALS. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE BANK HAS MERELY EXPLAI NED THEIR GENERAL PRACTICE FOR VERIFYING THE STOCK STATEMENT. HOWEVER, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT B EEN CLARIFIED BY THE BANK. THUS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MERELY RELIED UPON THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF THE BANK INSTEA D OF VERIFYING THE ACTUAL FACT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS ON THE CLOSING OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR THE CLOSING STOCK WAS OF RS. 1,88,17,001/- WHICH IS ALSO REPORTED TO THE BANK ON THE SAME DATE WHICH IS ALSO CERTIFIED BY THE BANK (PB-11). IT WOULD, THEREFORE, SHOW THA T THE STOCK STATEMENT TALLY WITH THE STOCK STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE 11 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 BANK AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR ON 31.03.2014 . THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT THE STO CK STATEMENT SUBMITTED ON 28.02.2014 PRIOR TO CLOSE OF THE FINAN CIAL YEAR WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND NOT ON ACTUAL BASIS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE DEALS IN CONTROLLED ITEMS LIKE FERTILIZER AND CHEMICALS, THEREFORE, IT IS SUBJECT TO PHYSICAL VERIFICATION BY AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT. N O ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE AO FROM THE CONCERNED AGRICUL TURE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO DISCREPANCY IN THE STOCK. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT IN THE PRECEDING AY 2013-14 THE SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOLL OWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIDHU RICE & GENERAL MILLS (SUPRA). THEREF ORE, LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY LD . COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SQUARELY APPLIED TO THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, COVERED BY THES E DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THA T REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE RULE OF CONSIST ENCY. IN VIEW 12 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. I, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 12. GROUND NO. 1 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. ON GROUND NO. 2, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 55,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. D URING THE YEAR, UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 1,85,000/- TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE FAM ILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF HIMSELF AND WIFE ONLY. BOTH T HE SONS ARE EARNING SEPARATELY AND RESIDING IN PUNE AND CHANDIG ARH. THE FAMILY RESIDES IN OWN HOUSE FOR WHICH NO RENT IS TO BE PAID. THE FAMILY OWNS ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ABOU T 10 ACRES WHICH BELONGS TO HUF AND INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE WA S ALSO USE FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUB MITTED THAT THE HOUSEHOLD SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,85,000/- I N ADDITION TO AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS MORE THAN SUFFIC IENT CONSIDERING SIZE OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E AO, HOWEVER, ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF ASSESS EE TO RS. 13 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 20,000/- P.M. CONSIDERING STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 2,40,000/-. TH E DIFFERENCE OF RS. 55,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 14. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION IS MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION CONSIDERING SOCIAL STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. 15. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 17. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. IT IS N OT IN DISPUTE THAT FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF SELF AND HI S WIFE ONLY. THE ASSESSEE RESIDES IN HIS OWN HOUSE AND HAS SUFFI CIENT ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGRI CULTURAL 14 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 INCOME ALSO. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE O N RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS. 20,000/- PER MONTH. THE AO DID NOT DOUBT THE EXPLA NATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WITHD RAWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME ARE SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAIN THE FAMILY. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT IN PREC EDING AY 2013-14 LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SAME ISSUE IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25.04.2017 AND ON IDENTICAL FACTS DELET ED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ENHANCING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPE NSES. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT DU RING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL I.E. 2013-14 ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 1,12,010/-. THE FURTHER ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED AS AGAINST HOUSEHOLD EXP ENSES OF AY 2013-14, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR U NDER APPEAL. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A CONTRARY VIEW IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ADDITION IS MADE MERELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS. THEREFORE, SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 15 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 01.08.2019 *KAVITA ARORA COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI. 16 ITA.NO.2980/DEL./2019 DATE OF DICTATION 1 9 .07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFOR E THE DICTATING MEMBER 29 .07.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P S/PS 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 01.08.2019 DATE ON WH ICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WE BSITE OF ITAT 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 01.08.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSI STANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER