DCIT-WARDHA-CIRCLE, Wardha V. SHRI SHABBIR KADAR LAMBA, Wardha

ITA 308/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1593 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALLIK
• Assessee Lawyers: S C THAKKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 69; 56

Judgement Text

1 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I .T.A. NO. 3 08 /NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARDHA CIRCLE, WARDH A 442001 VS SHRI SHABBIR KADAR LAMBA, PROP. OF M/S. FAIYYAZ TRADERS, PATEL CHOWK, WARDHA 442001 PAN:AAPRL6934H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. SUMAN MALLIK, (JCIT) RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. C. THAKKAR, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 17 - 11 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 - 11 - 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE BY THE REVENUE ARISING F ROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) - I, NAGPUR DATED 26 - 03 - 2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. GROUND NO.1 RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,02,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I. T. ACT AS THE INVESTMENT IS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF OTHERS. 3 . THE FACTS IN BRIEF, AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 29 - 12 - 2011 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE & RETAIL TRADING OF OIL, JAGGERY, MATCHSTIC KS, ETC. UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. FAIYYAZ TRADERS. A RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.9,34,452/ - . A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT 2 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF THE ABO VE GROUND, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WAS AS UNDER: - I. ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT 3. 0 IT IS NOTICED THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.5,00,000/ - SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN AUDIT REPORT BUT NOT REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF A/C. THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN FOUND WITH UNACCOUNTED SALE AND PURCHASE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN IMPOUNDED WHICH SHOWS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BUT FAILED TO ADD IN TOTAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DTD. 13.12.2011 AS TO WHY SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I. T. F OR A. Y. 2009 - 10. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED WIT H SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXPLAINED THE CASE, BUT THEY FAILED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY REPLY IN ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF PURCHASES. AS SEEN THE MONTHLY TRADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE PURCHASE IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008, WAS RS.9,0 2,550/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO REPORT IN AUDIT REPORT. IN ABSENCE OF PROPER REPLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS.902,550/ - INCLUDING RS.5,00,000/ - IS ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69C OF THE I. T. ACT,1961 IN TERMS OF THE PURCHASES. THE AR AGREED ON SAID AD DITION. THEREFORE, I, ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,02,550/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69C OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT. (RS.9 ,02 ,550 ). 4 . WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: - 5 .2 IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION SOME BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS OTHER THAN REGULAR BOOKS WERE FOUND WHEREIN THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES AND SALES WERE RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY PREPARED TRADING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WORKED OUT THE NET PRO FIT OF RS.1,75,000/ - OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR INCOME EMANATED FROM THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION. AS REGARDS TO THE ENTRY OF RS.5,00,000/ - , THE AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE WHICH WAS EXPLAINED TO TH E AO AND THE FIGURE OF RS.5,00,000/ - ACTUALLY RELATES TO MR. HANIF SHABBIR LAMBA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. POPULAR TRADERS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS TO THE ENTRY OF RS.5,00,000/ - IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, AS THE SAME DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSE E. FURTHER THAT 3 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE PURCHASES OF RS.9,02,550/ - FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL PURCHASES ARE 9,15,230/ - AND PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE AFTE R THE SALE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN REALISED AS SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE ON CREDIT BASIS. ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION OF ENTIRE PURCHASES FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL WHEN THE ASSESSEE AFTER TAKING INTO CON SIDERATION THE ENTRIES OF PURCHASES AND SALES AS EMANATED FROM THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL PREPARED THE TRADING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND DECLARED THE NET PROFIT ON THE SAME OVER AND ABOVE THE PROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE AD DITION IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5 . WE HAVE HEA RD BOTH THE SIDES. ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO COGENT REASON FOR THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE PURCHASES FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL, WHILE THE ASSESSE E, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTRIES OF PURCHASES AND SALES EMANATED FROM THE IMPOUNDED MATERIALS, PREPARED THE TRADING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND DECLARED THE NET PROFIT ON THE SAME IN ADDITION TO THE PROFIT WORKED OUT FROM THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE HEREBY CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS. AS A RESULT, THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 6. GROUND NO .2 OF THE APPEAL READS AS FOLLOWS: - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 ,00,000 / - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES U/S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 AS THE INVESTMENT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF OTHERS . 7 . IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - II . ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT IN PROPERTIES 4. IT IS ALSO FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDE D DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED UNEXPLAINED AMOUNT IN PROPERTIES. DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED TWO PLOTS AT MHADA FOR WHICH AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,000 (DTD. 20.09.2008) AND RS.2,00,000 (DTD.18.11.2008) WAS PAID AS ADVANCE. FRO M THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE PLOTS WHICH WERE HAVING REGISTERED VALUE OF RS.2,64,696/ - AND RS.2,35,786/ - RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED IN THE STATEMENT ITSELF TO EXPLAIN THE COURSE OF INVESTMENT. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED 4 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 THESE AMOUNT OF RS .3,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE A. Y. 2009 - 10. THEREFORE, AR WAS ASKED TO GIVE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I. T. FOR A. Y. 2009 - 10. THE AR AGREED ON THE SAID ADDITION . THEREFORE, I ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT. (RS. 3 ,00,000 / - ) 8 . THE ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY. T HE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF AS UNDER: - 6.3 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,00,00 0/ - COMPRISING OF RS.1,00,000 AND RS.2,00,000/ - MADE BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS PURCHASE PRICE OF THE MHADA PLOTS IS FOUND REFLECTED IN THE REGULARLY MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. AO IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASONS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - EXCEPT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO THE ADDITIONS. NO FINDING AS REGARDS TO THE ENTRIES OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER. SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DULY FOUND REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT, THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,00,000/ - (I.E. RS.1,00,000/ - + RS.2,00,000/ - ) MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF MHADA PLOTS IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT ASSIGNED ANY REASONS FOR MAKING T HE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/ - EXCEPT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO THE ADDITION. HE HAS ALSO NOT INCORPORATED ANY FINDING WITH REGARD TO ENTRIES OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTION IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE FA CTS, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REVERSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) REQUIRES NO INTERFERENCE . ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND REJECT THE REVEN UES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND. 5 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 10. GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UNDER: - 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,99,248/ - ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT PERCENT AGE. 11. IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - III. ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF GROSS PROFIT OF JAGGERY 5. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED FROM THE ANNEXURE A - 1/5 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED G. P. RATIO AT THE 8.35% B UT, WHILE CALCULATION OF THE FIGURES FROM THE ANNEXURE IT IS REVEALED THAT THE G. P. RATIO COMES TO 10.44%. EVEN IN SURVEY REPORT THE CALCULATION OF GROSS PROFIT WAS NOT TAKEN CORRECTLY. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE OF GROSS PROFIT RS.1,99,284/ - SHOULD BE ADD ED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AR WAS ASKED TO GIVE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME U/S 56 OF THE I. T. ACT FOR A. Y. 2009 - 10. THE AR AGREED ON THE SAID ADDITION. THEREFORE, I, ADD AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,99, 284/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 56 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 . PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT. (RS.1,99,284 / - ) 12. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CARRIED MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 7.3 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR, IT IS SEEN THAT T HE CORRECT FIGURE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF JAGGERY ARE RS.87,38,795/ - AND RS.95,35,130/ - RESPECTIVELY ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT COMES TO RS.7,96,335/ - AND NOT RS.9,50,785 AS WORKED OUT BY THE AO. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS NOT ONLY ADDED THE DIFFEREN CE OF RS.1,54,450/ - BETWEEN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.9,50,785/ - AND RS.7,96,335/ - BUT HAS ALSO APPLIED THE ADDITIONAL G.P. RATE OF 2.09% ON THE SALE FIGURES OF RS.95,35,130/ - RESULTING INTO ADDITIONAL G. P. OF RS.1,99,284/ - . THUS, THE GP ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WHEN THE LD. AO HAS NEITHER DISPUTED NOR FOUND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE CORRECTED FIGURES OF SALE AT RS.95,35,130/ - BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION, BEING WITHOUT ANY BASIS IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS VERY CRYPTIC WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY INFIRMITY WITH REGARD TO THE 6 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 GROSS SALE FIGURE OF RS.95,35,130/ - AS WORKED OUT CORRECTLY BY THE AO. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED TH AT THE AO HAS NOT ONLY ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,54,450/ - BETWEEN THE GROSS PROFIT OF RS.9,50,785/ - AND RS.7,96,335/ - BUT, THE AO HAS ALSO WRONGLY APPLIED THE ADDITIONAL GP RATE OF 2.09% ON THE SALE FIGURES OF RS.95,35,130/ - WHICH RESULTED INTO ADDITION AL GP OF RS.1,99,284/ - . UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE . THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. GRO UND NO.4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AS UNDER: - 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,32,220/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY, INFLATION OF RUPEE AND STANDARD OF LIVING. 15. IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - IV. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DRAWINGS 6. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWA L AMOUNTING TO RS.71,780/ - . THE COUNSEL WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES CLAIMED VIZ. STANDARD OF LIVING AND SIZE OF THE FAMILY. IT APPEARED THAT THE DRAWING FOR HOUSE HOLD ARE VERY LOW HENCE, IT WAS ASKED WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE ES TIMATED PROPORTIONATE TO THE LIVING STANDARD AND INFLATION IN INDIAN ECONOMY. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY, THE COUNSEL APPEARED ON 13.12.2011 AND CONFRONTED THAT HE IS READY TO GET ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AS P ER FAMILY STRENGTH AND INFLATION. I AM OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DRAWINGS WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH AND AS SUCH HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES OF WHOLE FAMILY WERE ESTIMATED AT RS.17,000/ - WHICH COMES TO RS.2,04,000/ - . THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,32,220/ - ESTIMATED AS ADDITIONAL DRAWING IS BEING ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE I. T. ACT,1961. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CO NCEALMENT. (RS.1,32,220) 7 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 16. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF AS UNDER: - 8.3 ON CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN LIVING IN A JOINT FAMILY AND THE CUMULATIVE WITHDRAWALS OF ALL THE FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING TOGETHER OUGHT TO HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED. THE CONTENTION OF THE AR IS ACCEPTABLE. IT IS A FACT THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE WITHDRAWALS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ADDITION, THEREFORE, IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETE D. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 17 . HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, A LTHOUGH, A SURVEY U/S 133A OF T HE IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED, THERE WAS NO COGENT REASON TO ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE OF THE FAMILY. AS A RESULT, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A). THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 18 . IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 24 TH NOV., 2015. LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/SR. PS 8 I TA NO. 3 08 /NA G/2014 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT ( APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGIST RAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 7 . 11.2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19 .11.2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRA FT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK