ATUL VYAS, MUMBAI V. DCIT CC-23, MUMBAI

ITA 4080/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6368 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Keywords: Source of fund; Additional evidence; Validity of assessment
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4079 TO 4081/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02 ATUL C. VYAS, 16, HARDAYAL SOCIETY, 3, GARODIA NAGAR, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI 75. PAN AABPV 5606 M VS. ACIT C.C. 23. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY SHRI SATBIR SINGH ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. OUT OF THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , TWO APPEALS BEING ITA NO. 4079/MUM/10 & 4081/MUM/10 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A CO MPOSITE ORDER DATED 24.4.10 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) -40, MUMBAI FOR A.Y. 1999- 2000 AND 2001-02 WHEREAS THE THIRD APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 4080/MUM/10 IS DIRECTED AGAINS T A SEPARATE ORDER DATED 24.4.10 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2000-01. SINCE C OMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGET HER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIEN CE. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO THESE APPEALS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX UP TO 1998-99. FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, NO RETURN OF INCOME, HOWEVER, WAS FILED BY HIM. THE A .O., THEREFORE, ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 148 ON 30.3.2002 AFTER DULY RECORDING THE REASONS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.11.2002 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` NIL. ON THE 2 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS SAID DAY I.E. 22.11.2002, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED H IS RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND 2001-02 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` NIL. SINCE THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2000-01 ON 22.11.2002 WAS A BELAT ED RETURN, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE A.O. ON 7.1.2003 TO REGULARIZE THE SAID RETU RN. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 AND FOR A.Y. 2001-02 U/S 143(3). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY THE A.O. TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HIS INCOME. HE WAS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE A.O. TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FROM W HICH THEY WERE INCURRED/MET. AFTER INITIAL HICCUPS, THE ASSESSEE FINALLY SUBMITTED A L ETTER DATED 18.12.2003 IN THE OFFICE OF THE A.O. MAKING THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSION: (I) DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I HAVE NO INCO ME DURING THE YEAR. EVEN I HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, NO DETAILS OF INCOME ARE SUBMITTED. (II) IN MY FAMILY WE ARE 3 OF US. MY WIFE, MY DAU GHTER AND MYSELF. NONE OF US WERE HAVING A TAXABLE INCOME DURING THE SAID ASSES SMENT YEAR. NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED FOR MY WIFE AND MY DAUGHTER. M Y DAUGHTER WAS STUDYING IN THE 7 TH STD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. (III) I AM STAYING WITH MY BROTHER. HE IS AN ENGI NEER AND WORKING IN CP TOOLS (I) LTD.. WE ARE STAYING TOGETHER RIGHT FROM THE C HILDHOOD. AS WE ARE STAYING IN A JOINT FAMILY THE DAY TO DAY EXPENSES A RE BORNE BY THE FAMILY. I HAVE NOT CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING IN THE FAMILY EXPENSE S FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. (IV) MY DAUGHTER WAS STUDYING IN A SCHOOL WHICH WA S HAVING A GRANT FROM THE GOVT. AND THEREFORE NO FEES WERE PAYABLE FOR MY DA UGHTER. I OWN THE FLAT THEREFORE THE RENT WAS NOT PAYABLE BY ME. REGULAR LY MY MOTHER FROM HER ACCOUNT PAID MAINTENANCE OF THE FLAT TO THE SOCIET Y. (V) I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE COPY OF MY BANK P ASSBOOK FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (VI) I HAVE NO INCOME FROM SHARES BUSINESS. 3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES OF HIS BANK PASS BOOK ALONG WITH THE AFORESAID LETTER DTD. 18.12.2003. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PASS BO OK AS WELL AS TAKING INTO 3 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS CONSIDERATION THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE A.O. DID N OT FIND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE S TATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY THE F AMILY MEMBERS WAS SELF- CONTRADICTORY TO HIS OWN SUBMISSION THAT NONE OF HI S FAMILY MEMBERS HAD ANY SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A. O. HELD THAT HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES THUS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ESTIMATING THE SAME AT ` 6000/- PER MONTH, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 72,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A LL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A.O. ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ST AND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NO SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS HAVING REGULAR BUSINESS IN THE EARLIER YEAR S AND HAD ALSO EARNED BROKERAGE INCOME WOULD NOT SIT IDLE WITHOUT DOING ANY BUSINES S IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD HE FOUND THAT THERE WERE TWO DEPOSITS O F ` 32,000/- AND ` 45,000/- MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1999-2000 AND 2001- 02 RESPECTIVELY WHICH AMOUNTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY WIT HDRAWN. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS THE BROKERAGE INCOME EARNED BY THE A SSESSEE AND ADDITIONS OF ` 32,000/- AND ` 45,000/- WERE MADE BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 RESPECTIVELY ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE IN COME. FOR A.Y. 2000-01, HE ESTIMATED THE BROKERAGE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 25,000/- IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED B Y HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE A.O. AT ` 1,04,000/- AND ` . 97,000/- FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 AND 2000-01 RESPECTIV ELY IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 VIDE AN ORDER DATED 20.2.2004. THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 WAS COMPLETED BY HIM U/ S 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER DATED 20.2.2004 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AT ` 1,17,000/-. 4. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O. FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, APPEALS WERE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IN THESE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE PRELIMINA RY ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NO SUBMISSIONS, HOWEVER, WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE AND IT WAS CONCEDED THAT THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RAISING THIS ISSUE WERE GENERAL IN NATURE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THERE WAS NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE A. O. FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE VALIDITY OF THE S AID ASSESSMENTS WERE UPHELD BY HIM. 5. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCO UNT OF BROKERAGE INCOME AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, IT WAS REITERATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT HE DID NOT HAVE ANY INCOME DURING ALL THE THREE YEA RS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY HIS B ROTHER AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKE RAGE INCOME WAS MADE BY THE A.O. MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE PERSON WHO WAS H AVING REGULAR BUSINESS IN THE EARLIER YEARS COULD NOT SIT IDLE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN A .Y. 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 AND TREATED BY THE A.O. AS BROKERAGE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE ACTUALLY THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY HIM FROM HIS PPF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE DE POSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK A/C. A COPY OF RELEVANT PPF A/C WAS ALSO FILED BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A REQUEST TO ADMIT THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AS REGARDS THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, AN AFFIDAVIT OF HIS BROTHER MR. GHANSHYAMDAS C. VYAS W AS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMING THAT THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN BORNE BY THE SAID DEPONENT AND A REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE SAME ALSO AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 6. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AS WELL AS EVIDENCE FILED, THE LD. CIT(A ) DECIDED THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE INCOME IN PAR A NO. 4.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 5 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. AS I FIND, THE DEPOSITS IN QUESTION WER E ON ACCOUNT OF PPF A/C WITHDRAWAL. ACCORDINGLY THEY CANNOT BE TREATED AS BROKERAGE INCOME. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, I FIND THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS ONLY BROUGHT ON RECORD THE AFFIDAVIT OF HIS BROTHER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE FACT THAT THE FAMILY EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT WERE BORNE BY HIS BROTHER . IT WOULD BE VERY UNLIKELY FOR A PERSON OF NORMAL PRUDENCE TO ASSUME THAT ALL EXPENSES OF THE BROTHER WOULD BE BORNE BY HIS BROTHER OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHILE HE IS ONLY SITTING IDLE AND NOT SHOULDERING HIS FAMILY OB LIGATIONS. IN VIEW OF THIS, I FIND THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT DID HAVE SOME BROKERAGE INCOME AS IN THE PAST. LOOKING INTO ALL ASPECTS OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE SAME CAN BE ESTIMATED AT ` 25,000/-. IN THIS ASPECT, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE THE OCCASION TO PRODUCE THE PPF A/C PASS BOOK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER CONFRO NTED WITH THE FACT THAT THESE DEPOSITS WILL BE TREATED AS BROKERAGE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, IN TERMS OF RULE 46A, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED B Y SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THIS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VI EW OF THIS, I ADMIT THE PPF PASS BOOK AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AT THE SAME TIME , I FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SHOULD LOOK INTO THE PASS BO OK. CONSIDERING THIS, I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE PASS BOO K AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO ` 25,000/- , IF ON VERIFICATION, IT IS FOUND THAT TH E DEPOSITS WERE WITHDRAWAL FROM PPF A/C. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND I S TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. THE OTHER ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS ALSO DECIDED BY HIM VIDE PAR A NO. 5.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. LOOKING INTO THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN TS FAMILY INCLUDED THE APPELLANTS WIFE, A SCHOOL GOING DAUGHTER AND THE APPELLANT HIM SELF, I FIND IT VERY UNLIKELY THAT HIS DAY TO DAY EXPENSES WILL BE MET BY HIS BROTHER FOR SUCCESSIVE YEARS. THIS IS FOUND TO BE MORE IMPROBABLE CONSIDERING THE FACT TH AT THE APPELLANT HAD A REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME EARLIER. THE APPELLANTS RELIANCE ON THE AFFIDAVIT BY HIS BROTHER IS ALSO MISPLACED IN THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE ACTUAL EARNINGS BY THE APPELLANTS BROTHER HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. IN ABSENCE OF THIS, THE AP PELLANTS BROTHER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO JUSTIFY HOW HE COULD MAINTAIN THE APPELLANTS FA MILY SINCE 1994. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD ON TH E SOURCE OF HIS MOTHERS INCOME TO PROVE HIS CONTENTION THAT THE SOCIETY CHARGED IN RESPECT OF HIS FLAT WERE PAID BY HIS MOTHER. ALSO, IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, I FIND THE APPELLANTS RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS QUOTED BY HIM AS MISPLACED. IN THE FOREGOING BACKGROUND, I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ESTIMATI ON OF THE APPELLANTS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT ` 6,000/- PER MONTH VERY REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS 8. THE LD. CIT(A) THUS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CON SIDERATION AND ALSO DIRECTED THE A.O. TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAG E INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 25,000/- IN EACH OF THE SAID THREE YEARS AFTER VERIFYING THE PP F PASS BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF TH E LD. CIT(A) FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE SE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PREL IMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR ALL THE THREE Y EARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THESE APPEALS, THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RELATING TO THE SAID ISSUE HAVE NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEF ORE ME. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE INCOME AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF ` 25,000/- IN EACH OF THE THREE YEARS, I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION RAI SED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER BROUGHT ON RE CORD BY THE A.O. TO REBUT/CONTROVERT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION SO AS TO EARN ANY INCOME FROM BROKERA GE. MERELY BECAUSE SUCH BUSINESS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS RESUL TING INTO EARNING OF BROKERAGE INCOME, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID BUSINESS WAS ALSO C ARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES LEADING TO HIS REMAINING IDLE WERE DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE DEPOSITS FOUND TO BE MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO A .Y. 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 AND TREATED BY THE A.O. AS BROKERAGE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WER E ACTUALLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM PPF ACCOUNT AND THIS P OSITION WAS DULY ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COPY OF RELEVANT PPF PASS BOOK SHOWING THE SAID WITHDRAWALS. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE INCOME THUS 7 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS WAS PURELY BASED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE W OULD HAVE CARRIED ON HIS BUSINESS EVEN IN THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO SUSTAIN THE SAID ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 25,000/- IN EACH OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION MERELY ON ESTIMATED BASIS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE TO REBUT/CONTROVERT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON BY HIM IN THE SAID YEARS RESULTING IN EARNING OF ANY BROKERAGE IN COME. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, I DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND ALLOW THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL S RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE INCOME IN EACH OF THE THREE YE ARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, I FIND THAT THERE WAS NO COGENT EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE H IS EXPLANATION THAT PERSONAL EXPENSES WERE BORNE BY HIS BROTHER. ALTHOUGH AN AFFIDAVIT O F THE SAID BROTHER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE RELEVANT DETAILS SUCH AS THE EXACT QUANTUM OF INCOME EARNED BY HIM AND SUFFICIENCY THEREOF TO MEET ALL THE EXPENSES OF BOTH THE FAMILIES WERE NOT FURNISHED SO AS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY WERE BORNE BY THE SAID BROTHER. I, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH CALLED FOR. I, HOWEVER, FIND THAT THE ESTIMATE OF SUCH EXPENSES MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT ` 72,000/- FOR EACH OF THE THREE YEARS IS NOT PROPER AND THE SAME IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE FAIR A ND REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE SUCH EXPENSES AT ` 48,000/-, ` 60,000/- & ` 72,000/- FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001-02 RESPECTIVELY. I AM ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE AM OUNTS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS PPF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE SAVINGS BANK A/C AND AGAIN WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAID SAVINGS BANK A/C COULD BE TREATED AS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO MEET HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AS THERE WAS NOTHIN G TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS 8 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS WERE UTILIZED BY HIM ANYWHERE ELSE. I, THEREFORE, MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND SUSTAIN THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 16,000/-, ` 60,000/- AND ` 27,000/- FOR A.Y. 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2001- 02 RESPECTIVELY. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF THE ASSES SEES APPEAL RELATING TO THIS ISSUE ARE THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER , 2010. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 40 - MUMBAI 4. THE CIT- CENTRAL II, MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH, SMC 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI 9 ITA 4079 TO 4081/M/10, ATUL C. VYAS ` DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED 18.11.10, 23.11.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.11.10, 23.11.10 SR.P.S./P.S. 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER. - J.M./A.M. 4.DRAFT DISCUSSED/ APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. J.M./A.M. 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. SR.P.S./P.S. 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S. 8. DATE OF WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.