Rajendra Kumar Somani, Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

ITA 35/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4444 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Salary income
• Section: 69C; 69

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.652/LKW/15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCHES, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.35,36 & 37/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS:04-05, 05-06 & 06-07 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SOMANI, 51/27, SOMANI BHAWAN, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR. PAN:ABMPS8535P VS. DY.C.I.T., KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE F OR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON THEREFORE, AS AGREED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, ALL THE APPEALS HAVE BE EN DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER ON THE BASIS OF FACTS INVOLVED IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THERE ARE ONLY TWO ISSUES. ONE ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION BEING MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LO W HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWAL AND THE OTHER RELATES TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOU NT OF PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILL EXCEPT THE CHANGE IN THE FIGURES. BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT ALL THESE APPEALS BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS INVOLVED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND WHATEVER VIEW THE TRIBUNAL MAY TAK E IN THAT YEAR, THE SAME VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 AND 2006-07. APPELLANT BY SHRI B. P. YADAV, COST ACCOUNTANT RESPONDENT BY SMT. NIDHI VERMA, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 21/04/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 / 04 /2016 I.T.A. NO.652/LKW/15 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 004-05 ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLA RED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13,62,220/-. THE SAID INCOME CONSISTS OF SALARY INCOME OF RS.8,40,000/-, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS.5,43,363/- INCLUDIN G INTEREST ON LOAN AT RS.5,32,213/- AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EX PENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.16,986/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES WITH REGARD TO EXPENSES INCU RRED ON TELEPHONE, MOBILE PHONE, PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILL FOR HOUSE NO. A-9, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR. DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR , THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ELECTRICITY BILLS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,42,417 /-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE INSPECTORS REPORT THAT THE ASSESS EE IS LIVING IN STYLE ON THE PALATIAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN PLOT OF ABOUT 1600 SQ. MTR. CONSTRUCTED AT A- 9, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR, ESTIMATED THE DRAWING O F THE ASSESSEE @RS.25,000/- PER MONTH AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED TH E TOTAL EXPENSES INCLUDING ELECTRICITY AT RS.4,42,417/- AS THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN HIS DRAWING AT RS.85,000/- THEREFORE, HE ADDED RS.3,57,417/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWAL. THE ASSE SSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, CAREFULLY C ONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT SO FAR THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- TOWARDS THE LOW HOUSE HOL D WITHDRAWALS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER JUST ESTIMATED THE MONTHLY EXPEND ITURE OF THE ASSESSEE @RS.25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE MADE THE DRAWINGS AT RS .85,000/-. NO DETAIL WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE MORE THAN RS.85,000/-. THE ADDITION HA S BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 69 LAYS DOWN A RULE OF LAW. THE SECTION MANDATES THAT WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR THE I.T.A. NO.652/LKW/15 3 ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AND OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF OR THE E XPLANATION, IF ANY, OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, SATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT COVERED BY SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF, AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FR OM THESE PROVISIONS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROV E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE. THERE IS NO EVI DENCE OR COGENT MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD OR PLACED BEFORE US BY LEAR NED D.R. WHICH MAY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITUR E MUCH MORE THAN THE SUM OF RS.85,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS DRAWINGS EXCEPT THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY. THE ASSESSING O FFICER JUST ESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURE. ONCE THE REVENUE DISCHARGES ITS ONUS ONLY THEN THE ONUS GETS SHIFTED ON THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE EXPLANATION PROVING THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE EXPENDITURE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. SINCE THE REVENUE DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS ONUS WE THEREFORE, SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LAC MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW DRAWINGS. THUS, GROUND NO. 1 STANDS ALLOWED. 5. THE OTHER ISSUE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADD ITION OF ELECTRICITY BILL AMOUNTING TO RS.1,42,417/-. THE LEARNED A. R. OF T HE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE US BUT COULD NOT PR OVE OR SUBMIT ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH MAY PROVE THE NAT URE AND SOURCE OF THESE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVEN UE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY BRINGING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD BUT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREFORE, WE SUSTAIN THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF TH E ADDITION BEING MADE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BILL TO THE EXTENT OF RS .1,42,417/-. THUS, THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A. NO.652/LKW/15 4 6. SIMILARLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 20 06-07, THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS AMOUN TING TO RS.3,60,000/- IN EACH YEAR STAND DELETED AND ADDITION MADE IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07 IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF ELECTRICITY BI LL AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- AND RS.1,60,000/- RESPECTIVELY STAND CONFIRMED IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S TAND PARTLY ALLOWED. SD/. SD/. ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( P. K . BANSAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER DATED:28/04/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR