I.T.O., Ward-2(2), Farrukhabad V. Shri Virendra Kumar Agarwal(HUF), Farrukhabad

ITA 499/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0325 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Rule of consistency; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 68; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR AGARW AL (HUF), WARD 202), FARRUKHABAD. PROP. M/S. SURAJ PD. VIR ENDRA KUMAR, NEHRU ROAD, FARRUKHABAD. (PAN : AADHV 4191 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.K. MISHRA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SWARAN SINGH, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 15.03.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 26.07.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ON GROUND NO. 1, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,14,589/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE HUF DEALS IN TRADING OF CLOTH ON RETAIL BASIS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 2 ACCOUNT AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE A O ALONG WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE AO ON EXAMINATION OF THE TURNOVER AND PROFIT FOUND THAT THOUGH THE SALES AND G.P. AS DECLARED IS PROGRESSIVE, BUT THE G.P. AND NET PROFIT RATE RATIO IS DOWNWARDS IN COMPARISON TO THE TURNOVER OF THE LAST YEAR. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT R ATE OF 14.54% AND NET PROFIT RATE AT 1.15% AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS G.P. RATE OF 13.60% IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 14.62% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE AO CALLED FOR THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING LOW PROFIT RA TE AND THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED THE BOOK RESULTS, WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY ALL THE EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS. THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD WAS ALSO EXPLAINED, BUT THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE BOOK R ESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 145 OF THE IT ACT AND APPLIED THE G.P. RATE OF 25% AND MAD E THE ADDITION OF RS.24,14,589/-. THE ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE APP ELLATE ORDER, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT IT IS FILING RETURN FOR LAST 30 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BOOK RESULTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN PAST. THE AO HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY SPECIFIC BILL/VOUCHER /ENTRY WHICH IS NOT VERIFIABLE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. MERELY LOW PROFIT ITSELF IS NO GROUND TO REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE ON THE SAME FACTS AN D MATERIAL, THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE , ON THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 3 THE BOOK RESULTS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. THE AO APP LIED HIGHER PROFIT RATE WITHOUT ANY REASON AND NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTE D OUT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD FOUND THAT FALL IN G.P. IS V ERY MARGINAL AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIER YEARS AND EVEN IT IS NOT COMPARED WITH ANY OTHER INSTANCE. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AOS OBJECTION WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FOLLOWE D THE FIFO OR LIFO METHOD OF STOCK, WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTE DLY A RETAIL TRADER IN CLOTHES BUSINESS WHERE EACH AND EVERY PIECE OF CLOTH MAY BE DIFFERENT ON VARIETY AND PRICE RANGES, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN T HE STOCK REGISTER. THE AO ACCEPTED THE BOOK RESULTS IN SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEREFORE, THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AO ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. NO DEFE CTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS F OUND TO BE UNJUSTIFIED AND THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 4. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO PB-17, WHICH IS A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 U/ S. 143(3) DATED 18.03.2009, IN WHICH THE AO ACCEPTED THE PROFIT RATE OF 13.60% IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE ON THE SAME FACTS. ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 4 5. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THE A SSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.2,30,95,815/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL SHOWING GROSS PROFIT OF RS.33,59,364/- AT THE GP RATE OF 14.54% A ND N.P. RATE OF 1.15%. IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SALES OF RS.2,21,04,616/- AND PROFIT THEREON AT RS.32,33,575 /- AND G.P. RATE AT 14.62%. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE TOTAL SALES DECLARED A RE RS.1,84,24,785/- UPON WHICH THE PROFIT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.25,06,511/- AND G.P . RATE AT 13.60%. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE AO ACCEPTED THE BOOK R ESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND G.P. RATE AT RS.13.60% IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) (PB-17). THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE SAME BASIS AS WA S MAINTAINED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE T URNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACTUAL GROSS PROFIT HAS EXCEEDED AS COMPARED TO THE EARLIE R YEARS AND EVEN THE G.P. RATE IS EXCESSIVE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS COMPAR ED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DIFFERENCE IN G.P. RATE AS COMPARED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO COMPARABLE CASE HAS BEEN CITED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOW PROFIT RATE DELIBERATELY. WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON THE SAME METHOD OF ACCOUNTING , THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE DEVIATED FROM ITS EARLIER STAND IN ACCEPTING THE BO OK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 5 ASSESSEE TO BE RETAILER IN CLOTH, THE LD. CIT(A) WA S JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOW GROSS PROFIT RATE SH OWN IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ITSELF IS NO GROUND TO REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. GROUND NO. 1 OF APPEAL OF TH E REVENUE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. ON GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.71,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED LEDGER OF BONUS, BUT NO PROOF/EVIDENCE PRODUCED. THEREFORE , RS.71,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS WAS DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT BONUS IS PAID ON THE BASIS OF THE EARLIER YEARS AND IS ACCEP TED IN EARLIER YEARS. AVERAGE BONUS IS 5.33% OF THE TOTAL SALARY AND THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED PROPER RECORDS, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT (A) ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD FOUND THAT PROOF OF PAYMENT HAS BEEN PRODUCED AND B ONUS HAS BEEN PAID TO THE EMPLOYEES AS PER LONG AND CONSISTENT PRACTICE. THER EFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN FI LED TO PROVE PAYMENT OF BONUS. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON T HE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 6 BELOW AND PRODUCED COPY OF RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT OF BONUS TO THE EMPLOYEES ON THE OCCASION OF DIWALI. 8. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSION WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ON EXAM INATION OF RECORD FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAYING BONUS TO THE EMPLOYEES EVE N IN THE LAST YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. BONUS IS PAID AS PER PAST PRACTICE I N WHICH PROPER RECORDS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND ALL EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BEF ORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. ON GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY DISALLOWED U/S. 40A(2)(B) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD SALARY PAID SUM OF RS.13,32 ,000/- TO THE EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE FILED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THIS EXPENDITURE B EFORE THE AO. THE AO ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN THE EMPLOYEES OF 19 PERSONS OUT OF WHICH SIX PERSONS ARE FAMILY MEMBERS TO WHOM SALARY HAS BEEN PAID RS.12,000/- AND 10,000/- RESPECTIVELY. BESIDES ABOVE, 14 EMPLOYEES ARE ALSO SUCH AS SALES MEN TO WHOM MAXIMUM SALARY HAS TO BE GIVEN AT RS.6500/- WHICH WAS ALSO FOUND EXCESSIVE BECAUSE NO DETAILS OF THEI R EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION HAS BEEN FILED. THE AO, THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THE PAYME NTS OF SALARY HAVE BEEN MADE TO ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 7 FAMILY MEMBERS EXCESSIVELY. THE AO ALSO MENTIONED T HAT IN RESPECT OF FIVE PERSONS, SALARY IS EXCESSIVE BY RS.4000/- PER EMPLO YEE AND ACCORDINGLY TOTAL DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN A SUM OF RS.4,40,000/-. TH E ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT COM PLETE DETAILS OF SALARY VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED ALONG WITH COMPLETE NAMES AND ADDRESS ES OF THE EMPLOYEES TO WHOM SALARY HAS BEEN PAID AND EVEN IN UN-SKILLED LA BOUR, PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RS.200/- PER DAY FOR 8 WORKING HOURS IN U. P. WHEREAS SALARY PAID TO THE MEMBERS OF HUF WHO ARE ATTENDING THE BUSINESS RANGE S FROM RS.10,000/- TO RS.12,000/- PER MONTH AND ALL THE MEMBERS ARE POST GRADUATE EXCEPT KARTA AND ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE EXPERIENCE RANGING FROM 12 YEARS T O 45 YEARS IN THE TRADE. THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE EXPERIENCE, QUALIFICATION , TIME DEVOTED TO THE BUSINESS FOR 11.30 HOURS PER DAY, THE SALARY CANNOT BE CONSIDERE D TO BE EXCESSIVE. ALL ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND FOR REST OF THE EMPLOYEES, THESE ARE SALES MEN, HELPERS AND ACCOUNTANTS ETC. TO WHOM THE SALARY HAS BEEN PA ID AROUND RS.3500/- TO RS.6500/- WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN EARL IER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND M AY BE DELETED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE EVIDENCES WHICH CONTAINED COMPLETE DETAILS OF ALL T HE EMPLOYEES. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT REASONS AS TO HOW THE SALARY PAID WAS EXCESSIVE. SALARY PAID TO THE MEMBERS OF HUF ARE FOUND TO BE REASONABLE AND R EGARDING THE FIVE MEMBERS OF HUF, THE SAME SALARY WAS GIVEN TO THEM IN PAST WHIC H HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. IT WAS, ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 8 THEREFORE, FOUND THAT THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUST IFIED AND WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 10. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, W E ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE AD DITION. ALL THE MEMBERS OF HUF TO WHOM SALARY HAS BEEN PAID WERE WORKING WITH THE ASSESSEE IN PAST ALSO IN WHICH SALARY PAID TO THEM HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. T HEY ALL ARE PROPERLY EDUCATED AND HAVE WORK EXPERIENCE. THEREFORE, THE SALARY PAI D TO THEM RANGING FROM RS.10,000/- TO RS.12,000/- CANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNR EASONABLE. FURTHER THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE SA LARY PAID TO THEM WERE EXCESSIVE AS PER MARKET PRACTICE AND OTHER SALARY P AID TO EMPLOYEES WERE ALSO ACCEPTED IN PAST. THEREFORE, THE AO WITHOUT BRINGIN G ANY EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THE SALARY WAS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH SERVICES, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING T HE ADDITION. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 11. ON GROUND NO. 4, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3,15,497/- (ACTUALLY RS.3,00,000/-) ON ACCOUNT O F SECURITY TO BANK OF INDIA. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE SCHEDULE-G OF THE BALANCE SHEE T FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 9 SHOWN IN THE NAME OF BANK OF INDIA, BUT NO DETAILS COULD BE GIVEN. THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 6 8 OF THE IT ACT. THE ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS.3,00,000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE MADE FDR OF RS.3,00,000/- WITH BANK OF IND IA AND PLEDGED WITH THE SAME BANK AS SECURITY AGAINST CASH CREDIT LIMIT OF RS.10 ,00,000/-. IT WAS OPENING BALANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THE ASSESSE E FILED COMPLETE DETAILS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) ON VERIFICATION OF THE SAME FOUND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE COR RECT BECAUSE IT WAS A DEBIT BALANCE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIO N U/S. 68 COULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLE DGED FDR OF RS.3,00,000/- WITH THE BANK OF INDIA WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SH EET ON THE ASSET SIDE. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT THE LIABILITY. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION U/S. 68 COULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE ALSO FILED COPY OF BANK OF INDIA SECURITY ACCOUNT WHICH SHOW THAT ON 01.04.200 8, THERE IS AN OPENING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.3,00,000/-. THEREFORE, NO AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE BANK IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, ON THIS CO UNT ALSO, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 10 13. ON GROUND NO. 5, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DEL ETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWA LS. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN DRAWINGS OF RS.4,49,131/-. THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF HUF JOINT FAMILY MEMBER ACCOUNT AND IS REASONABLE. THE AO CONSIDERING ALL THE POSSIBLE LEA KAGES MADE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) THAT ADHOC ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF HUF ARE SEPARAT ELY ASSESSED TO TAX AND TWO ARE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND BUSINESSMEN STAYING IN NEW DELHI AND GURGAON AND HAVE INDEPENDENT SOURCE. REST OF THE TWO SONS O F KARTA ARE LIVING AT FARRUKHABAD AND THEIR WIVES ARE SEPARATELY ASSESSED AND THEY ALL LIVE IN COMMON HOUSE AND IN PAST ALSO NO SUCH ADDITION HAS BEEN MA DE. THEY LIVE IN SMALL CITY LIKE FARRUKHABAD. THEREFORE, HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS ARE S UFFICIENT. ADHOC ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD FOUND THAT SIX ADULT M EMBERS WERE THERE IN THE FAMILY AND ALL OF THEM ARE FILING THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. THERE ARE FOUR SMALL CHILDREN BUT THOSE WERE NOT EVEN SCHOOL GOING. THE ASSESSEES FA MILY IS STAYING IN A PARENTAL HOUSE AND COST OF LIVING IN FARRUKHABAD IS NOT SO E XCESSIVE. THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 14. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSION, IN TH E LIGHT OF FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE AO ITA NO. 499/AGRA/2012 11 HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC ITEM, WHICH IS THE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO MADE ADD ITION IN ORDER TO COVER THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGES ON ADHOC BASIS, WHICH IS NOT PERM ISSIBLE. IN ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC DETAILS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE FI NDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT EVEN THERE IS NO SCHOOL GOING CHILDREN OF ASSESSEE AND T HAT ALL THE MEMBERS HAVE INDEPENDENT SOURCE WOULD SHOW THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, AC CORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY