Jamshed Ahmed, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 3633/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 363320114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y S KAKKAR

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.3633/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 JAMSHED AHMED, INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 446, GALI TELIYAN, KHAIR NAGAR GATE, VS. WAD-1(3), MEERUT. MEERUT. PAN: ADXPA7600A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANKUR GOEL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y.S. KAKKAR, SR. DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 1 0.05.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) PE RTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE LE ARNED CIT(A)S ORDER IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER:- 1. RS.66,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. 2. RS.1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,20,430/- ON 14.02.2008. THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 25.09.2008 WAS ISSUED, WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESS EE, THE AO MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY HIM. IN THIS APPEAL, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AFORESAID TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.6 6,000/- AND RS.1,50,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. THE FIRST ADDITION IS WITH REGARD TO THE ALLEGED LOW HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HOUSE-HOLD WI THDRAWALS AT RS.48,000/-. THE ASSESSEES FAMILY CONSISTS OF SEL F, WIFE AND THREE UNMARRIED CHILDREN. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT TWO SONS OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS HOUSE-HOLD EXPENS ES. THUS, THE TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS WAS OF RS.1,14,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES HOUS E-HOLD EXPENSES AT RS.15,000/- PER MONTH AND THUS, DETERMINED THE ANNU AL HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES AT RS.1,80,000/-. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF RS.36,000/- SHOWN TO HAV E BEEN MADE AS CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES BY THE ASS ESSEES ONE SON, NAMELY, SHRI MOHD. SHARIQ JAMSHED. THE AO, THEREFO RE, HAD TAKEN THE TOTAL 3 HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES AT RS.78,000/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,02,000/- WAS MADE AS ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON AN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.66,000/- BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO REASON T O DISBELIEVE THE CLAIM OF CONTRIBUTION OF RS.36,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEES SON SHRI MOHD. SHARIQ JAMSHED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GI VEN THE BENEFIT OF RS.36,000/- BEING CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE S SON SH. MOHD. SHARIQ JAMSHED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. IN THIS CASE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE HOUSE-HOLD EX PENSES OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY AT RS.1,80,000/-. THERE IS NO EV IDENCE OR MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,80,000/- DURING THE YEAR. THE AO HA S STATED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE, COST OF INDEX AT MEEERUT & NOIDA AND PROFESSIONAL NEEDS OF THE ASSESSEE (UP-DOWN FRO M MEERUT TO NOIDA) AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY RECORD, HE ESTIMATED THE TOTAL HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.15,000/- PER MONTH. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR THAT THE AO IN THIS CASE, HAS TAKEN NOTE OF T HE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF HIS PROFESSIONAL NEEDS. EXPENSES INCURRED FOR 4 PROFESSIONAL NEEDS HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUN T AS HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES, WHICH BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, CAN B E SAID TO BE IN THE NATURE OF HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY BASIS TO ESTIMATE THE ASSESSEES HOUSE-HOLD EXPENSES AT RS.1,80,000/-. T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.66,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS DELE TED. 9. NEXT ADDITION IS WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS .1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME. 10. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PROFESSION AL RECEIPT OF RS.2,00,000/- AND HAS ALSO SHOWN THE EXPENSES OF RS .50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS, DECLARED NET INCOME OF RS.1,50,000/-. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSIT ED CERTAIN AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.60,335/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF NAMES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM HE HAD RECEIVED THE PROFESSIONAL FEES, THE AO ESTIMATED THE ASSESSEES NET INCOME AT RS.25,000/- PER MONTH AND THUS, HE ARRIVED AT RS.3,00,000/- PER ANNUM. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN AD DITION OF RS.1,50,000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS INCOME BY OBS ERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AND HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THAT RS.60,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) GOING BY REASONABLENESS OF THE AOS ESTIMATE OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,00,000/-, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50 ,000/- MADE BY THE AO. 5 11. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AFORES AID ADDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- IS PURELY BASED ON ESTIMATE. THERE I S NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OVER AND ABOVE RS.2,00,000/-. THE AMOUNTS OF RS.60,000/ - DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE TOTAL RECEIPTS FROM THE PR OFESSIONAL RECEIPTS SHOWN AT RS.2,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1, 50,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS DELETED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 7 TH OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH OCTOBER, 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.