Shri Gurdeep Singh Bhatia (HUF), Indore V. The ITO 3(1), Indore

ITA 498/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5801 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Assessee Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO. 530/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2005-06 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, 3(1), VS INDORE INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT P.A.N. NO A FCPB9973J APPELLANT BY SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N. D. PATWA, ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING : 01 . 12 .2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 . 01 .201 6 ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 2 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BARODA,(CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OVER THE CHARGE OF CIT(A)-I, INDORE) DATED 30.04.2013 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 31,400/-.AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FROM TH E BILLS WHEN THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL FEES U/S 40(A)(IA), WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED PROFI T ON SALE OF WASTE EGGS OF RS. 50,000/-. ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 3 3 2.1 WHILE HOLDING SO THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE COMMODITY INVOLVED WAS A SALABLE COMMODITY AS PER THE SALE RATE FETCHED BY THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISPOSING OFF THE SAME COMMODITY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION RIGHT LY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 19,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS EVEN WHEN THE RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION AND THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION WAS AMBIGUOUS. 3.1 WHILE HOLDING SO THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPO N SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE BEFORE AO ON THIS ISSUE BY MENTIONING THAT THIS FACT IS ALSO QUOTED BY AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEN NEITHER ANY SUBMISSION WAS FILED NOR ANY SUCH FACT WAS MENTIONED BY AO IN THE ORDER AND EVEN DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AO REPORTED AGAINST ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 4 4 WHEN ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DETAILS BEFORE HIM EVEN WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO DO SO. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 1,80,000/- TO RS. 90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 4.1 WHILE HOLDING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING A CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 1.80 LAKH WAS REASONABLE AND REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN VIEW OF SIZE OF THE FAMILY AS WELL AS ITS STATUS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,58,291/- ON 31.3.2006. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143( 3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 36,70,070/-. ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 5 5 4. THE FIRST GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 31,400/ - OUT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 79,125/- DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT AS LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES FOR NON DEDUCTIO N OF TDS. 5. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS. 79,125/- AS LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES IN PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID MORE T HAN RS. 20,000/- DURING THE YEAR AS LEGAL CHARGES TO SHRI G OURAV CHHABRA ON WHICH NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED AS PER SECTION 194 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE AMOUNT WAS PAID ON VA RIOUS DATES, WHICH TOTALLED TO RS. 31,400/-. AS THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 194J, THE AMOU NT OF RS. 31,400/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 6. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) SET-ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIR ECTION TO VERIFY THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BILLS OF T HE COUNSEL. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 8. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS PAID RS. 79,125/- AS LEGAL AND PROFESS IONAL ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 6 6 CHARGES AND OUT OF THIS RS. 31,400/- WAS ADDED U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR WANT OF TDS. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT RS. 16,400/- WAS OF COURT EXPENSES PAID THROUG H ASSESSEES COUNSEL SHRI GAURAV CHHABRA AND RS. 15,0 00/- WAS PAID AS FEE BUT THE AO SIMPLY REFUSED THE ARGUM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED RS. 31,400/- IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPO RTUNITY TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE PROPERLY. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY ALL THE PAPERS/BILLS AND COURT EXPENSES, WHICH WERE PAID THROUGH THE COUNSEL SHRI GAURAV CHHABRA AND AL SO THE FEE PAID TO HIM. IF THESE ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT T HEN THE ADDITION WILL STAND DELETED. GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PROFIT ON SALE OF WASTE EGGS. ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 7 7 11. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE BY SPECIFIC QUERY AS TO, WHY THE INCOME OF WASTE EGG SALE WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TA X. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REPLIED THAT THE PROCESS OF HATCHING AND AFTERWARDS THERE REMAIN EGG SALE, DEAD CHICKS A ND WASTE EGGS WHICH ARE NOT MEANT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND GIVES BAD SMELL AND HAVE TOBE DISPOSED OF OTHERWISE THERE ARE CHANCES EPIDEMICS TO THE NEWLY BORN CHICKS AND HUMA N AS WELL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR EXPENSES TO DISP OSE OF THE SAME AND TO DEBIT THE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES IN TH E RELEVANT HEAD. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPT ABLE ON THE GROUND THAT M/S. SINGH POULTRY AND M/S. SIMRAN HATCHERY WERE DOING SIMILAR NATURE OF BUSINESS AND OFFERING INCOME OF REJECTED EGGS TO TAX. THEREFORE, THE AO F ORMED THE OPINION THAT TRANSPORTATION CHARGES PAID AT RS. 17, 200/- WAS RELATING TO REJECTED EGGS, ON WHICH PROFIT WAS EARN ED AND WAS NOT DISCLOSED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS AND EV IDENCE, THE PROFIT WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 50,000/- AND ADDED TO T HE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 8 8 12. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO INST ANCE OF SALE OF WASTE EGGS DETECTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR NOT SELLING SUCH REJECTED EGGS. 13. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 14. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT TH E ASSESSEE INCURRED RS. 17,200/- ON TRANSPORTATION OF WASTE EGGS SHELL AND DEAD CHICKEN WHICH WERE RECEIVED AFT ER 21 DAYS OF HATCHING AND THESE ITEMS WERE NOT MEANT FOR HUMA N CONSUMPTION AND GIVE VERY BAD SMELL IF THEY ARE NO T DISPOSED OF REGULARLY AND COST OF DISPOSAL WAS SHOWN AS TRAN SPORTATION OF WASTE EGGS AND THERE WAS NO INCOME EARNED FROM A LLEGED SALE OF THESE MATERIALS. REGARDING SIMRAN HATCHERIE S AND SINGH POULTRY, WHO HAVE SHOWN INCOME FROM REJECTED EGGS, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT SIMRAN HATCHERIES IS SITUATED AT BHOPAL WHERE THESE MATERI AL I.E. EGGS SHELL ETC. ARE USED FOR FISH FEED AND SOLD FOR NOMI NAL AMOUNT OF RS. 46,944/- IN THE TURNOVER OF RS. 6.45. HE FURTHE R STATED THAT ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 9 9 WHEN THERE IS MARKET THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT S, BUT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE THE HATCHERY WAS SITUATED AT VI LLAGE MANA (RAIPUR) AND THERE WAS NO BUYER FOR THIS MATERIAL A ND BECAUSE OF THAT REASON THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR EXPENSES T O CLEAR THE TYPICAL WASTE REGULARLY, OTHERWISE IT WILL CREATE H EALTH AND HYGIENIC PROBLEMS FOR SURROUNDING AREA. IN THE CASE OF SINGH POULTRY, WHICH WAS NOT DOING HATCHING BUSINESS BUT PRODUCING HATCHING EGGS AND AFTER SORTING IT, THE POULTRY SOL D THE REJECTED EGGS WHICH ARE NOT FERTILE AND FETCH GOOD PRICE AS IT CAN BE USED FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION. THE AO WITHOUT UNDERSTA NDING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS COMPARED THE RESULT OF ASSES SEE WITH THIS CONCERN, WHICH IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR COMPARISO N. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONCLUDED THAT ADDITION M AY BE DELETED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PLAUS IBLE EXPLANATIONS REGARDING SISTER CONCERNS ,NAMELY, SIM RAN HATCHERIES AND SINGH POULTRY. WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 10 10 CIT(A). OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED. GROUND NO . 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 16. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 17. THE AO FOUND THAT THE CREDIT OF RS. 19,50,000/- WAS REFLECTED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM SUMIT CONSTRU CTION DURING THE YEAR. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WITH EVIDENCE AND C OPY OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. SUMIT CONSTRUCTION. THE AO TREATED THE INCOME OF RS. 19,50,000/- FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 8.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS AND THE AOS OBSERVATIONS. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO FULLY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.19,50,000/- . SUCH EXPLANATION IS ALSO BASED UPON THE RETURNS OF INCOM E FILED ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 11 11 IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-0 2. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE AO IS THAT SINCE SUCH EXPLANA TION AS NOT FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HENCE THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. BUT THE APPELLANT DID MAKE THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RE CEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF RETURN OF AMOUNT GIVEN DURING ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2001-02. THIS FACT HAS BEEN QUOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO. THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION FOR NOT FILING THE DOCUMENTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS IS ALSO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 19. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 20. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 13,00,000/- THROUGH CHEQUE NO . 536505 DATED 25.01.2005 FROM M/S. SUMIT CONSTRUCTION COMPA NY . ANOTHER CHEQUE OF RS. 6,50,000/- WAS RECEIVED THROU GH CHEQUE NO. 536506 DATED 28.01.2005 FROM M/S. SUMIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. CONFIRMATION IS PLACED ON REC ORD AT P. B. 138. IT WAS DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCO UNT. IN ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 12 12 ACCOUNT OF M/S. SUMIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, THE DEB IT IS ON THE NAME OF AMARJEET SINGH BHATIA. IN OTHER WORDS, M/S. SUMIT CONSTRUCTION DEBITED THE ACCOUNT OF AMARJIT S INGH BHATIA AND ISSUED THE CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO I N TURN CREDITED IT IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT ON THE NAME OF M /S. SUMIT CONSTRUCTION. IN OTHER WORDS, SHRI AMAJIT SINGH GA VE RS. 13,00,000/- OUT OF HIS ACCOUNT IN M/S. SUMIT CONSTR UCTION COMPANY. ASSESSEES DETAILED SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONCLUDED THAT THE ADDI TION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH CHEQ UES. THE EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE C IT(A) WERE ALSO ACCEPTED. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED. GROUND NO . 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 13 13 22. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE RESTRICTION OF THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 1,80,000/- TO RS. 90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. 23. THE AO FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL AT RS. 3700/- IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ON ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETA ILS OF FAMILY TREE, HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AND DETAILS OF CON TRIBUTION MADE BY FAMILY MEMBERS IN HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE WAS FAILED TO REPLY THE SAID QUERY. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS AND LOOKING TO THE FAMILY STATUS OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE AO ESTIMATED THE HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 1,8 0,000/- ( @ RS.15,000/- X 12 ) PER ANNUM. 24. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 90,000/- FROM RS. 1, 80,000/- LOOKING UPON THE SIZE AND STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND ALSO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 3770/-. 25. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 26. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF HIS WIFE, TWO SO NS AND THEIR ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 14 14 WIVES AND THEY ARE LIVING IN THEIR OWN ANCESTRAL HO USE AND ALL THE MEMBERS ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEES AND THE TOTAL DRAWING OF THE FAMILY WAS AS UNDER :- (1) GURMEET SINGH BHATIA 2,21,392/- PAN ACDPB73993J (2) SMT.SURINDER KAUR BHATIA 84,169/- PAN AGAPB9402E (3) HARPAL SINGH BHATIA 80,726/- PAN ACDPB7392K 27. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS POINT WAS INADVERTENTLY REMAINED TO BE AN SWERED BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO ALSO FAILED TO CONFRONT TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THIS POINT AND ITS EVIDENCE WAS ENCLOSED SEPARATELY AS ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE UNDER RULE 46A. THE DRAWINGS OF THE FAMILY ARE SUFFICIENT LOOKING TO THE SIZE AND STATUS OF THE FAMILY. THE LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE CONCLUDED THE ARGUMENTS STATING THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO, WHO HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THE SUBMISSION. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN ASKED FOR BY THE ASSESS ING ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 15 15 OFFICER TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF FAMILY TREE, HOUS E HOLD EXPENSES AND DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTION MADE BY FAMILY MEMBER IN HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS ALSO, HE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF CONTRIBUTION MADE BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. WE UPHOLD T HE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT R EQUIRED. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JANUARY, 2016. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 5 TH JANUARY, 2016. CPU* 2.12 ITO VS. SHRI GURDEEP SINGH BHATIA, INDORE, I.T.A.NO . 530/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 16 16