Shri Neeru Sehgal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3829/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8209 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.3829/DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SMT. NEERU SEHGAL, A-42, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW ADDRESS: PROPERTY NO.10, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI 110 026. PAN : ABLPS-3280L VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-16, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SR. DR ORDER PER : I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 20 TH JULY, 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.2,40,00 0/- INCORRECTLY AND UNJUSTIFIABLY MADE BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO ADD A SUM OF RS.1,52,000/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS ON THE BASIS OF IDEAS IMAGINATION ASSUMPTION WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF. ITA NO.3829/DEL/2009 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WHEREAS THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEE N FULLY ALLOWED. 2. THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF HER HUSBA ND AND TWO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN AGED 8 AND 11 YEARS OLD. THE HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES ARE CONTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS HUSBAND BY WITHDRAWING RS.48,0 00/- EACH FROM THEIR ACCOUNTS. THESE EXPENSES WERE FOUND TO BE LOW BY T HE AO WHO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIVING A VERY HIGH STANDARD LI FE WHICH COMES IN THE CATEGORY OF SUPER RICH. THEY ARE HAVING OTHER LUXURY IN THE HOUSE THAT MONEY COULD BUY. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.20,000/- PER MONTH I.E., A SUM OF RS.2,40,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. 3. BEFORE THE CIT (A) IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF HUSBAND ALSO WHIC H WAS MADE AT A SUM OF RS.3,60,000/- AND, THUS, IF THE ADDITION MADE IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS HUSBAND IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, THE TOTAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WILL BE RS.6,96,000/- WHICH IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF AO. TH US, IT HAS BEEN THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT THE ADDITION HAS WRONGLY BEEN MADE WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS. LD . CIT (A) HAS ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.2 LAC IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.48,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,000/-, THUS, HAS GIV EN THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.88,000/-. THE ASSESSEE IS STIL L AGGRIEVED, HENCE, IN APPEAL. 4. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWE VER, NONE WAS PRESENT ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, WE PROCEE DED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON OUR RECORD. NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE ASSESSEE TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXPENSES OF HER FAMILY WERE RESTRICTED ONL Y TO RS.96,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN. NO MATERIA L HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON ITA NO.3829/DEL/2009 3 RECORD THAT IN WHICH SCHOOL THEY ARE STUDYING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ONLY RESTRICTED TO RS.96,000/- (CONTRIBUTED HALF BY THE ASSESSEE AND H ALF BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE), IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT HOUSEHOLD WITHDRA WALS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE JUSTIFIED. IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS, AN ESTI MATE HAS TO BE MADE. THE CASE OF HUSBAND IS NOT BEFORE US IN WHICH IT IS STATED T HAT AN ADDITION OF RS.3,60,000/- IS MADE. HOWEVER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT I F THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THAT ADDITION AND HIS E XPENDITURE ALSO RESTRICTED TO RS.2 LAC INCLUDING THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIM, THE N, TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FAMILY WILL BE A SUM OF RS.4 LAC IF THE ORDER OF CIT A) IS GIVEN EFFECT WHICH MEANS THAT AROUND RS.33,333/- PER MONT H. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AT A SUM OF RS.3 LAC. IF 50% IS TAKEN TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEN, THE ASSESSE E WAS LIABLE TO MAKE EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,50,000/-. RS.48,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS WITHDRAWAL AND, THUS, THE ADDITION TO BE SUSTAINED IS A SUM OF RS.1 ,02,000/-. THEREFORE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,02,000/- IS SUSTAINED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. . THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.02.201 0. SD/- SD/- [G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA] [I.P. BANSAL] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 05.02.2010. DK ITA NO.3829/DEL/2009 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES