Shri Manojkumar K. Daswani, Surat V. The Jt. CIT, Range-5, Surat

ITA 3494/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6353 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL R SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Depreciation; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Third party statement
• Section: 69C; 133(6)

Judgement Text

SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3494/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI, I-4628, RADHAKRISHNA TEXTILE MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT- 395 002. [PAN: ABZPD 0751 D] VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-5, SURAT. APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI MEHUL R. SHAH, CA /REVENUE BY SHRI R.P. RASTOGI, SR. D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2019 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON : 18.07.2019 /O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, SURAT [IN SHORT THE CIT(A)] DATED 14.09.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1,SURAT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.88,544/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT BOOKED IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS, EVIDENCE AND REPLY FAVOURABLY. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, SURAT ERRED IN CONFIRMING RS.46,260/- TREATING IT AS BOGUS COMMISSION EXPENSES PAID TO PALIWAL SALES AGENCY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS, EVIDENCE AND REPLY FAVOURABLY. SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 10 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, SURAT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,14,153/- TREATING THE GENUINE PURCHASES MADE FROM M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT. LTD AS BOGUS PURCHASES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS, REPLY AND EVIDENCE FAVOURABLY. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, SURAT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.55,505/- AS AGAINST 20% BY THE A.O PERTAINING TO CAR EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE, PETROL EXPENSES, TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSE, TRAVELLING EXPENSE AND VEHICLE REPAIRING EXPENSE TREATING IT AS POSSIBILITY OF ELEMENTS OF PERSONAL USE WITHOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. 5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-1, SURAT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWING OF RS.8,250/- BEING 20% OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON MOTOR CAR TREATING IT AS AN ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE WITHOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. 3. GROUND NO.1 RELATED TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.88,544/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT BOOKED IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. 4. ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS OBTAINED FROM PARTIES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED DISCOUNT OF RS.88,544/- FROM FIVE PARTIES. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THIS DISCOUNT WAS BOOKED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR INSTEAD OF CURRENT YEAR. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THEREFORE, THE AO ADDED THE SAME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATED EVIDENCE THAT INCOME PERTAINS TO NEXT YEAR AND NOT TO THE CURRENT YEAR. SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 10 6. PER CONTRA , THE CONTRA CONFIRMATIONS RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES PROVE THAT INCOME PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE UNILATERAL ACT OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY SANCTION OF LAW. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT HE DID NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH REGARD TO THE ACCOUNTING POLICY OF THE YEAR IN THE CURRENT YEAR, HOWEVER AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THEN THE TAX PAID THEREON SHOULD BE ALLOWED CREDIT WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT BECAUSE DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE LAW. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BUT THAT SYSTEM DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED DISCOUNT IN THE NEXT YEAR, HENCE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE DISCOUNT IT HAS BOOKED ACCORDINGLY. FURTHER, THE TAX RATE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE SAME, HENCE SAME BEING TAX NEUTRAL. THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WHEN THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DISCOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8. PER CONTRA , THE LD. SR. D.R RELIED ON THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT AS PER COPIES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES PLACED AT PB PAGE 1 TO 51, THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED THE DISCOUNT AMOUNT IN NEXT YEAR AS AND WHEN HE HAS RECEIVED THE SAME. THIS PRACTICE IS BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE AS DISCOUNT IS DETERMINED SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 4 OF 10 AFTER TRANSACTIONS. FURTHER, MERCANTILE SYSTEM DOES NOT APPLY TO PARTIES FROM WHOM DISCOUNT IS RECEIVED. FURTHER, TAX RATE IS BEING SAME IT IS TAX NEUTRAL. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ADDITION OF THIS SMALL AMOUNT IS NOT JUSTIFIED, HENCE, SAME IS ALLOWED. 10. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE BOGUS COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.46,260/- PAID TO PALIWAL SALES AGENCY. 11. THE AO FOUND FROM THE INFORMATION RECEIVED U/S.133(6) FROM PALIWAL SALES AGENCY THAT THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED COMMISSION/DALALI FROM M/S. KALYAN TEXTILES, PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION AND DID NOT PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT COMMISSION WAS PAID TO M/S. PALIWAL SALES AGENCY, HENCE THE SAME WAS ADDED. IN APPEAL IT WAS CONTENDED THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT RECOVERABLE FROM SALES PARTIES WAS DIRECTLY DEDUCTED AS IRRECOVERABLE BY DEBITING THE ACCOUNT OF PALIWAL SALES AGENCY. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE LEDGER COPY OF PALIWAL SALES AGENCY SHOWS AN ENTRY PASSED FOR RS.46,260/- CREDITING THE ACCOUNT OF PALIWAL SALES AGENCY AND DEBITING BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AN UNILATERAL ENTRY PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESPECIALLY WHEN PALIWAL SALES AGENCY CATEGORICALLY DENIED ANY RECEIPT OF SUCH BROKERAGE/COMMISSION. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THE SAME FACTS AS REITERATED BECAUSE OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. PER CONTRA , THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 5 OF 10 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND THAT THE AMOUNT IRRECOVERABLE FROM SALES PARTIES WERE DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF PALIWAL SALES AGENCY, HENCE, IT IS NOT REFLECTED IN PALIWAL AGENCY ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY LEDGER ACCOUNT, HENCE, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ARE DELETED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 14. GROUND NO. 3 RELATED TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,14,153/- BEING PURCHASED MADE FROM M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT LTD. 15. ON VERIFICATION OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY M/S. ELL VEE SILKS MILLS PVT. LTD, IT WAS NOTICED THAT PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,14,153/- FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2010 TO 31.03.2011 BEING 8 BILLS WERE NOT FOUND ENTERED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE GOODS WERE RECEIVED FROM M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT. LTD AND ENTRY OF THIS IS PASSED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME GOODS WERE SENT TO THE PROCESS HOUSE FOR JOB WORK AND RECEIVED BACK FROM THE PROCESS HOUSE AFTER DYEING THE GREY CLOTH. HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE PURCHASE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SELLERS ARE NOT TALLIED AND FAILED TO SUBMIT THE TRANSPORT BILLS OF THE GOODS, THEREFORE, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS BOGUS PURCHASE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,14,153/-. 16. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHEREIN IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID PARTY MIGHT HAVE CREDITED ANOTHER ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF KALYAN TEXTILES AND SUCH CERTAIN ENTRIES OF SALE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED. THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPUTER GENERATED PRINT SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 6 OF 10 OUT PURPORTEDLY BELONGS TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. SHOWING SUCH PURCHASES. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE SAME AND REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. 17. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.76 TO 79 WHICH ARE CONTAINING DETAILS OF BILLS, DETAILS OF CHALLANS I.E. GOOD RECEIVED AND SENT FOR PROCESSING AND THE GOODS WHICH WERE SENT FOR DYEING AND PROCESSING. HENCE, CLAIMED THAT THE COPIES OF INVOICES OF PURCHASES, COPY OF CHALLANS AND COPY OF PROCESS HOUSE INVOICES SUPPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOODS FROM M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT. LTD. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER REFERRED PAPER BOOK PAGE 9 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TOTAL PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.985619/- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION FROM M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT. LTD AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE THROUGH IDBI BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.8,62,390/-. THUS, THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACTS HAS MADE PURCHASE FROM THE SAID PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF VOUCHER BILLS PLACED ON PAPER BOOKS PAGES FROM 82 TO 106. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM THE SAID PARTIES AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 7 OF 10 COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NANGALIA FABRICS (P) LTD. [(2013) 40 TAXMANN.COM 2016] (HC) (GUJ.), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE PURCHASES WERE SUPPORTED BY BILLS, ENTRIES WERE MADE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND PAYMENT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE, THE SAID PURPOSES COULD NOT BE HELD AS BOGUS PURCHASES. 18. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING REGULARLY PURCHASE FROM M/S. ELL VEE SILK MILLS PVT. LTD FOR WHICH LEDGER COPY OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 80 TO 82. FURTHER, WE FIND FROM THE LEDGER COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OPENING BALANCE OF RS.92,529/- IS SHOWN AGAINST SAID PARTY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR AT RS.9,85,619/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REDUCED RETURNED PURCHASE OF RS.62,839/-.THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNTING PAYEE CHEQUE TOWARDS THIS PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS.8,62,390/-, THE PAYMENT FROM THROUGH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AMOUNTING OF RS.42,557/- AND HAS TAKEN DISCOUNT OF RS.15,946/- AND CLOSING BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.94,416/-. SINCE THE PURCHASES ARE SUPPORTED BY PURCHASE BILLS, TRANSPORT, CHALLANS, VOUCHERS AND PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, HENCE, SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASE AS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. NANGALIA FABRICS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 8 OF 10 THE GENUINE PURCHASE OF RS.2,14,153/- AS BOGUS, HENCE, THE SAME IS THEREFORE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 20. GROUNDS NO.4 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.55,505/- BEING 10% OF RS.5,55,045/- AS AGAINST 20% BY THE AO, PERTAINING TO CAR EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE, PETROL, TELEPHONE, MOBILE, TRAVELLING AND VEHICLE REPAIRING EXPENSES. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 20% EXPENSES AMOUNT OF RS.1,11,009/- OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS.5,55,045/- AS MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE GROUND. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT THE RATE OF 10%, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ALTERNATIVE OFFER THAT WERE PERSONAL ELEMENT THE DISALLOWANCE WOULD BE RESTRICTED 20% OF CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE AND ITS USES BE DEEMED IT FIT TO THE RESTRICTED DISALLOWANCE TO 5% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM WHICH WORKED OUT OF RS.27,752/-, ACCORDINGLY SAME IS CONFIRMED AND BALANCE AMOUNT IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 22. GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,250/- BEING 20% OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON MOTOR CAR TREATING IT AS ON ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE. 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PERIOD PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND BEFORE CIT (A) AS PER HIS FINDINGS. IN VIEW OF THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 24. GROUND NO.6 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE AD HOC ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- AS WELL AS LAW ON THE GROUND THAT NO BREAK UP OF EXPENSES WERE PROVIDED. SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 9 OF 10 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND FIND THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT FOR THE FAMILY OF 4 MEMBERS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWN TOTAL OF RS.2,27,618/- BUT NO BREAK UP AS EXPENSE WAS FILED, THEREFORE LOOKING TO PRICE INFLATION, THE AO OBSERVED THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AT RS.3,00,000/- AND DIFFERENCE OF RS.75,000/- WAS ADDED ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT NO BREAK UP WAS FILED, THEREFORE ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AT THE RATE OF 25,000/- PER MONTH WAS CONSIDERED TO BE REASONABLE AND FAIR. 26. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE SHOWN AT RS.2,27,618/-, FOUR MEMBERS OF FAMILY ARE VERY REASONABLE AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON THE HOUSEHOLD DRAWING WHICH MORE THAN SHOWN FOR HER FAMILY MEMBERS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS PLACED RELIANCE AND THE DECISION CARRYING OF AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SMT. PARVATIBEN P. SUKHADIA, IN ITA NO. 1805/AHD/2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 DATED 25.05.2012, WHEREIN THE ITAT OBSERVED THAT WITHDRAWAL OF RS.2,70,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REASONABLE AND THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. SIMILARLY, THE ITAT IN THE ABOVE CASE, BY PLACING RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMAL 87 ITR 349 (SC) OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT, REQUIRES THAT THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE WHICH IS MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS. SINCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS NOT SHRI MANOJKUMAR K. DASWANI VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-5, SURAT/ITA NO. 3494/AHD/2015/A.Y.2011-12 PAGE 10 OF 10 BROUGHT OUT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE ON HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS MORE THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING ABOVE RULING THE ADDITION OF RS.75,000/- MADE BY THE AO HELD TO BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD, HENCE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 28. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18.07.2019 SD/- SD/- (H.S.SIDHU) (O.P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / SURAT, DATED:18 TH JULY, 2019/S. SAMANTA, PS COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT