Sangita Garg, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5899/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0147 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SL GUPTA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5899/DEL/2012 ASSTT.YEAR: 2008-09 MRS. SANGITA GARG, VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O JAIN KHANDELWAL & CO., WARD-36(2), 510, NEW DELHI HOUSE, NEW DELHI. 27, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001 (PAN: AAIPG0942R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI S.L. GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR SR. D R DATE OF HEARING: 06.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.6.2015 O R D E R PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI DATED 4.9.2012 IN APPEAL NO .176/10-11 FOR AY 2008-09. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 04.09.2012 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) XXVII, NEW DELHI IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 2 2. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) XXVII NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) DATED 16/12/2010 FOR T HE AY 2008- 09, PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 36(2) NEW DELHI FOR ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,16,153/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 3. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) XXVII, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 16/12/2010 FOR TH E AY 2008- 09, PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 36 (2 ) NEW DELHI FOR DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,03,655/ - AS INTEREST PAID ON LOAN, TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, AGAINST WH ICH THE RENT RECEIVED AND SHOWN AS INCOME BY THE APPELLANT. 5. ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . CIT (APPEALS) XXVII NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) DATED 16/12/2 10 FOR T HE A/Y 2008- 09, PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 36(2) NEW DELHI FOR ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,08,000/- ON ACC OUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS BY THE APPELLANT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS AP PEAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A T TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 3,20,480/- ON 25.9.2008. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSE SSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AT RS.21,92,670 AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS SUCH AS ADDITION OF RS. 11 ,51,483/- BY TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME, DISALLOWANCE OF INTERNET OF RS.78,942/-, DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTI ON OF INTEREST CLAIMED U/S 24 OF THE ACT OF RS.4,91,761 AND ADDITION OF RS.1,50,0 00 ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS DURING THE FINANCIAL PERIOD U NDER CONSIDERATION. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 3 3. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED ON CERTAIN GROUNDS BUT THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE RESTRICTED TO RS.8,16,153 ON ACCO UNT OF ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, RS.1,03,655 DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTE REST PAID ON LOAN AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS WA S RESTRICTED TO RS.1,08,000. 4. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE SECOND APPEAL WITH THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 5. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE C IT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,16,153/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY SIMPLY COMPARING THE TOTAL ACTUAL CROP YIELD OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AV ERAGE CROP YIELD FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE OF THE HARYANA GOVERNMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AO ALONG WITH REMAND REPORT BUT THERE WAS NO RE FERENCE OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE WEBSITE OF HARYANA GOVERNMENT IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DENIED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AGR ICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED ON AND CROPS WERE GROWN/PURCHASED ON THE AGRICULTUR AL LAND, THE AGRICULTURAL CROPS WERE BROUGHT TO GRAIN MARKET FOR SALE, AGRICU LTURAL CROPS WERE SOLD THROUGH COMMISSION AGENTS IN THE GRAIN MARKET AND THE SALE RATES ARE NOT EXCESSIVE THAN ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 4 THE PREVAILING MARKET RATES AND THE TREES WERE GROW N AND SOLD ON AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) UP HELD THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE YIELD OF CROPS OF WHEAT AND P ADDY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON HIGHER SIDE IN COMPARISON TO THE AVERAGE CRO P YIELD AS A WHOLE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE OF THE HARYANA GOVERNMENT. LD. COUN SEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SECOND GROUND OF CONFIRMATION OF ASSESSMENT ORD ER BY THE CIT(A) IS THAT THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS FOR SALE/PURCHASE OF TIMBER ARE N EITHER STAMPED NOR SIGNED AND ONLY THE DEMAND DRAFTS WERE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IGNORED SOME IMPORTANT FA CTS THAT THE FARMING/AGRICULTURE IS ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT UPON TH E NATURE AND YIELD/CROP WHICH VARIES FROM FIELD TO FIELD AND GEOGRAPHICALLY AREA TO AREA. LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE OF WHEAT HUSK, BY-PRODUCT (CATTLE FEED AND SALE OF TIMBER) AMOUNTING TO RS.40,000 AND RS.45,000 RESPEC TIVELY HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURE INCOME. LD. AR HAS FURTH ER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 15 TO 22 AND 31 AND SUB MITTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE, AGRICULTURE EXPENSES OF RS.2,15,000 CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES INCLUDE A SUM OF RS.45,000 RELATED TO THE SALE OF TIMBER AND THIS FACT WAS IGNORED BY THE CIT(A) WHIL E CALCULATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME ON COMPARATIVE BASIS. LD. AR VEHEMENTLY CON TENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY SOLD THE WHEAT AND PADDY BETWEEN RS.85 0/- TO RS.870/- PER QTL. AND ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 5 RS.1400 TO RS.1950 PER QTL. RESPECTIVELY AND THE CI T(A) HAD ARBITRARILY AND HYPOTHETICALLY DETERMINED THE AVERAGE SALE RATE OF WHEAT AND PADDY AT RS.800/- AND RS.1500/- PER QTL. RESPECTIVELY. 7. LD. AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAPE R BOOK PAGE NO. 1 TO 6, 13, 23, 24, 30 TO 51 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E ACTUALLY GREW CROPS ON HER LAND WHICH WERE SOLD IN THE GRAIN MARKET THROUGH CO MMISSION AGENTS AND THE CROPS WERE SOLD AS PER PREVAILING MARKET RATES AND THERE IS NO EXCESSIVE CLAIM IN THIS REGARD. LD. AR HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION T OWARDS PAPER BOOK PAGE 15 TO 22 AND 31 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TREES WERE GROWN O N AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE TIMBER WAS SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET AND THE TOTAL AG RICULTURAL EXPENSES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO INCLUDE A SUM OF RS.45,000 WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF TIMBER. 8. LD. COUNSEL LASTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE AVERAGE YIELD STATED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF HARYANA ON ITS WEBSITE INCLUDES BARRE N AND WATER DEFICIENT LAND WHERE YIELD IS NEGLIGIBLE AND VERY LOW AND THE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY FERTILE HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURCE OF IRRIGATION, THEREFORE, YIELD AND QUALITY OF CROPS IS VERY GOOD WHICH BROUGHT HIGH AGRICULTURE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSEE. 9. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO AFTER DETAILED DELIBERATIONS, R IGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INSERTED HER CONCEALED INCOME UNDER THE DISGUI SE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME IN HER HANDS AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 6 ASSESSEE. LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) TOOK A VERY BALANCED APPROACH AND AFTER CONSIDERATION OF AVERAGE YIELD O F CROP AND AVERAGE SALE PRICE OF WHEAT AND PADDY RIGHTLY CALCULATED THE AGRICULTU RE INCOME AND REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS.8,16,153 WHICH IS SUSTAINABLE. LD. DR FINALLY PRAYED THAT THERE IS NO RELIABLE AND COGENT EVIDENCE REGARDING SALE OF T IMBER, THEREFORE, AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THIS REGARD CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. 10. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SEE PLACED 58 DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM REGARDING AGRICULTURE INCOM E, PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS BUT THE SAME WAS REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD WITHOUT ANY DETAILED DELIBERATIONS WHICH RESULTED INTO IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE. TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME, LD. AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF P UNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S .R.M. COTTON & OIL MILLS (2008) 174 TAXMAN 503 (P&H) AND ANOTHER JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS JARNAIL SINGH KARTA 174 TAXMAN 57 (P&H) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES BILLS VIDE WHICH THE TIMBER OF TREES WERE SOLD AND THE ID ENTITY OF THE PURCHASER HAD BEEN DULY DISCLOSED, THEN THE AGRICULTURE INCOME CA NNOT BE DISCARDED AND DISMISSED. 11. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT DENIED AND FACT THAT THERE WAS AGRICULTURE LAND OF ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 7 8.32 HECTARE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGRIC ULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED ON AND CROPS WERE GROWN/PRODUCED ON THE AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WERE SOLD IN THE GRAIN MARKET THROUGH COMMISSION AGENTS. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE WHEAT AND PADDY WERE SOLD BETWEEN RS.850 TO RS.870 AND RS.140 0 TO RS. 1950 RESPECTIVELY AND THE CIT(A) ADOPTED THE RATES SHOWN ON THE WEBSITE OF HARYANA GOVERNMENT AND DETERMINED THE AVERAGE SALE RATE AS RS. 800 FOR WHEAT AND RS.1500 PER QTL. FOR PADDY. FROM CAREFUL READING O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER, WE NOTE THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAV E NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY FACT OR ALLEGATION ON RECORD TO DISPUTE OR RAISE ANY DOUBT REGARDING PAPERS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 1 TO 51 WHICH CONTAIN LAND OWNERSHIP PROOF OF THE ASSESSEE, MASTER AKHIL GARG AND MASTER AMAN GARG, CONFIRMATION COPY OF ACCOUNTS AND PURCHASE VOUCHERS/BILLS FOR THE SALE OF TIMBER BY MASTER AKH IL GARG, PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF BOTH MINOR SONS OF THE ASSE SSEE, COPY OF THE AUCTION (BOLI) REGISTERS OF THE COMMISSION AGENT, CLARIFICA TION/CONFIRMATION FROM COMMISSION AGENT ABOUT CONTINUITY/USAGE OF J FORM BILL BOOK, BILL/CONFIRMATION PERTAINING TO AGRICULTURAL EXPENS ES. 12. AS PER CERTIFICATION MENTIONED ON THE PAPER BOO K OF THE ASSESSEE, SAID DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE PAGE NO. 1 TO 51 WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AND APPELLATE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WHEN WE ANALYSE THE C ONTENTS OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS, WE NOTE THAT PAGE NO. 1 & 2 SHOWS OWNERS HIP PROOF OF ASSESSEE SMT. SANGITA. (PAGE NO. 3 TO 7 SHOWS SALE OF WHEAT TO M/ S PRAVEEN TRADING CO. ) AND ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 8 RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,27,921/- BY C HEQUE NO. 007558 AND RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION OF RS.25,380 ON 18.3.2008 WHICH WA S RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 002669. PAGE NO. 8 TO 14 SHOW PROOF OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME OF MASTER AKHIL WHICH SHOWS PAYMENT FROM M/S PRAVEEN TRADING CO. TO MASTER AKHIL GARG AS CONSIDERATION OF WHEAT AND PADDY AMOUNTING TO RS.5, 23,112 WHICH FINALLY SHOWS CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.4,71,229 IN THE BOOKS OF M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR ON ACCOUNT OF AKHIL GARG. FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 15 TO 22, WE NOTE THAT ON PAGE NO. 15, THERE IS A CONFIRMATION FROM M/S RADHA KRISHNA PLY & BOARD INDUSTRIES DATED 30.1.2012 WHEREIN CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN PLACED STATING THAT THE TIMBER WAS PURCHASED FROM MASTER AKHIL FROM 2.2.200 8 TO 28.2.2008 AMOUNTING TO RS.4,50,502 AND PAYMENT OF WHICH WAS MADE THROUG H DEMAND DRAFTS. THIS CONFIRMATION ALSO CONTAINS PAN NO. OF PURCHASER FIR M M/S RADHA KRISHNA PLY & BOARD INDUSTRIES. FROM PAGE NO. 16 TO 22, WE OBS ERVE THAT PAGE NO. 16 IS A COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AT PAGE NO. 17 TO 22, COPIES OF PURCHASE VOUCHERS OF T IMBER FROM MASTER AKHIL FROM 2.2.2008 TO 28.2.2008 REVEAL THAT ON 12 OCCASI ONS, THE TIMBER WAS PURCHASED FROM MASTER AKHIL BY M/S RADHA KRISHNA P LY & BOARD INDUSTRIES, YAMUNA NAGAR AND PAYMENT WAS ALSO MADE THROUGH DEM AND DRAFT. 13. FROM COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF MASTER AMAN GARG FOR AY 2007-08 AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 23 & 24, WE NOTE THAT THERE W AS A BALANCE OF RS.5,43,150 AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHICH ACCRUED TO MASTER AMAN GA RG ON ACCOUNT OF SALE ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 9 CONSIDERATION OF WHEAT, PADDY AND SUNFLOWER TO M/S PRAVEEN TRADING CO. PAGE NO. 25 TO 29 ARE THE BILLS ISSUED BY COMMISSION AGE NT SHOWING THE WEIGHT AND PRICE OF AGRICULTURE CROP WHICH WAS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF MASTER AMAN GARG. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT AT PAGE 30 & 31, WE SEE THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF MASTER AMAN AND MA STER AKHIL S/O PARVEEN WHICH SHOW AGRICULTURE LAND OF 53 CANAL, 16 MARLA I N THEIR NAMES AND PAGE 31 ALSO REVEALS THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TREES AND AGRICULTURE CROP WAS ALSO EXPLOITED THEREFROM WHICH BROUGHT AGRICULTURE INCOM E FOR THE ASSESSEE. FROM PAGE NO. 32 TO 43, WE SEE THE COPIES OF AUCTION REG ISTER (BOLI H REGISTER) WHEREIN ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, NAMES OF ASSESSEE MRS . SANGITA AND HER MINOR SONS MASTER AKHIL AND MASTER AMAN HAVE BEEN MENTION ED. THIS REGISTER NOT ONLY SHOWS THE DATE OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE CROP BUT ALSO EXPLAINS QUANTITY AND RATE OF THE SOLD AGRICULTURE, PRODUCE AND THE NAME OF THE PURCHASER WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS THIS FACT THAT THE AGRICULTURE CROP WAS GR OWN AND CARRIED TO GRAIN MARKET FOR SALE THROUGH COMMISSION AGENTS. PAGE NO. 44 AN D 45 SHOWS DETAILS OF PURCHASE VOUCHERS ( J FORMS) ISSUED BY M/S PARVEEN TRADING COMPANY. PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 46, 47 AND 48 ARE THE COPIES OF THE R ECEIPT ISSUED BY SHRI CHAMAN LAL WHEREIN MR. CHAMAN LAL STATES THAT DURING FY 20 07-08, HE CONDUCTED WORK OF SOWING OF CROP AND TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURA L CROP AND TIMBER THROUGH HIS TRACTOR AND RECEIPT, FREIGHT AND DIESEL EXPENSES FR OM MASTER AKHIL S/O PARVEEN R/O SHABHAD. SHRI CHAMAN LAL IN RECEIPT AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 48 ALSO STATES THAT HE ALSO CONDUCTED WORK OF CROP SOWING AND TRANSPORT ATION OF AGRICULTURE CROP BY ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 10 HIS TRACTOR AGAINST WHICH HE RECEIVED SOWING WAYS O F PADDY AT RS. 12,000 AND RS.9500 ON ACCOUNT OF WORK REGARDING WHEAT CROP. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED COPIES OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL, PAYMENT RECEIPTS AT PAGE 49 TO 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WI TH BANK OF BARODA, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED R.S 2 LAKH THROUGH CHEQUE AND RS. 1 LAKH ALSO THROUGH CHEQUE FROM M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR. 14. ON THE BASIS OF CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF DOCUMENTAR Y PROOF SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTING TO PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF AGRICU LTURE LAND, PROOF OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE CREDIT AND TIMBER AND RECEIPT OF CONSID ERATION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL POSSIBLE DOCUMENTARY PROOF SUPPORTING HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM SAL E OF AGRICULTURE CROP AND TIMBER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED PROOF OF T REES WHICH WERE RECORDED IN THE REVENUE RECORDS ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND HIS MINOR SONS. 15. IN PARA 2, AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, W E OBSERVE THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY IOT A OF DOCUMENTS TO AFFECT THE OWNERSHIP AND EXTENT OF RENT ON WHICH SAID WHEAT CR OP WAS GROWN, YIELD OF WHEAT AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD, EXPENSES INCURR ED ON GRAINS, THRESHING AND TRANSPORTATION ETC.; DETAILS AND BILLS OF EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE AND FERTILIZER; AND THE DETAILS OF LABOUR ENGAGED FOR A GRICULTURE OPERATIONS AND DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE TO LABOR. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE A O AFTER LEVELLING AFORESAID ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 11 ALLEGATION PROCEEDED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM IN RESPECT OF INCOME SHOWN AS AGRICULTURE INCOME AND A LSO HOLD THAT A PERSON WHO CLAIMED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AS TO ESTABLISH AND PR OVE IT. THE AO MADE ADDITION TREATING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HER INC OME IN THE DISGUISE OF CONCEALED INCOME IN HER HANDS. FROM VIGILANT READI NG OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING REMAND RE PORT OF THE AO AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,35,330 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.8,16,153 WAS TREATED ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED TO THIS EXTENT. FROM PARA 18 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, W E NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE YIELD OF WHEAT AND PADDY AS PER HARY ANA GOVERNMENT WEBSITE AND ALSO CONSIDERED RATES OF WHEAT AND PADDY AS SHO WN IN HARYANA GOVERNMENT WEBSITE. THE CIT(A) CALCULATED THE QUANTITY AND SA LE PRICE OF WHEAT AND PADDY AS PER GOVERNMENT DATA WHICH IS NOT A PROPER AND JU STIFIED APPROACH. ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATION OF TH E AO AND THE CIT(A), WE NOTE THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER MINOR SONS HOLD AGRICULTURE LAND AS PER REVENUE RECORD. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT AS PER REVENUE RECORDS, THERE WERE NUMBER OF T REES ON THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER MINOR SONS, THEREFORE, TRANSACTION OF SALE OF TIMBER BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER MINOR SONS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN VIEW OF AGRICULTURE LAND OWNERSHIP PROOF, CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASERS AND COM MISSION AGENTS, AUCTION ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 12 REGISTER, J FORM BILL BOOK AND BILL/CONFIRMATION PE RTAINING TO AGRICULTURE EXPENSES, WE HOLD THAT THE AO WRONGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY IOTA OF DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP OF AGRI CULTURAL LAND AND GROWING THRESHING AND TRANSPORTATION OF AGRICULTURE CROP AN D TIMBER AS THE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND APPRECIATED PROPERLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIZ. CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT CONSID ER THESE DOCUMENTS AND MERELY AFTER CONSIDERING THE DATA OF AGRICULTURE DE PARTMENT OF HARYANA GOVERNMENT THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE YIELD OF CROP A ND SALE PRICE AND RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.35,35,330. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE REGARDING INCOME FROM SALE OF TIM BER MERELY OBSERVING THAT THE COPS OF THE PURCHASE BILLS FILED BY THE APPELLA NT FROM M/S RADHA KRISHNA PLY & BOARD INDUSTRIES, YAMUNA NAGAR ARE NEITHER SIGN ED NOR STAMPED BUT FROM CERTIFICATE AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, WE NOTE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY STAMPED AND SIGNED ALONG WITH PAN NO. OF T HE SAID FIRM M/S RADHA KRISHNA PLY & BOARD INDUSTRIES, PURCHASE BILLS AVAI LABLE AT PAGE 17 TO 22 ARE ALSO SIGNED WHICH HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM PRINTED STA TIONERY IN THE NAME OF FIRM. WE MAY POINT OUT THAT IF ANY DOUBT COMES INTO THE M IND OF AO OR FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE SAME CAN BE VERIFIED BY WAY OF SPECIF IC QUERY FROM THE ASSESSEE BUT THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE HELD AS BOGUS OR UNACCEP TABLE ON THE SOLE BASIS OF THE DOUBT ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO EXPLAIN HER STAND AND CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 13 16. ON THE BASIS OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE REACH TO AN ORIGINAL CONCLUSION THAT THE CIT(A) WRONGLY ADOPTED AVERAGE YIELD AND S ALE PRICE OF WHEAT AND PADDY AS SHOWN IN THE WEBSITE OF GOVERNMENT OF HARY ANA. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN DISMISSING THE CLAIM OF THE ASESSEE REGA RDING INCOME FROM SALE OF TIMBER WITHOUT FURTHER VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION . WE MAY POINT OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF SALE OF TIMBER WAS ALSO NOT PROPERLY EXAMI NED BY THE AO AT HIS LEVEL AND THE AO DISMISSED ENTIRE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY DELIBERATION AND ADJUDICATION. IN THIS SITUATION, WE DISMISS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY IOTA O F DOCUMENT TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM ABOUT AGRICULTURE INCOME BECAUSE AS WE HAVE A LREADY NOTED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL POSSIBLE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING REVENUE RECORDS, PURCHASE BILLS/VOUCHERS, BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER RELEVANT D OCUMENTS SHOWING AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES WHICH BROUGHT AGRICULTURE IN COME TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. AS WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW DID NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT AGRICULTURE IN COME AND AO DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE THRESHOLD ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT AND WRONG OBSERVATIONS. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED A PART OF THE CLAIM AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 8,16,153/- WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL BASIS AND SUSTAINABLE REASONING AND BY TAKING A HYP ER TECHNICAL AND INCORRECT APPROACH AND DATA. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 14 18. IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIE W THAT THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURE INCOME REQUIRES PROPER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE AO AND WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DE NOVO FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING FOR THE ASSESS EE AND WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE AO SHALL ADJUDICATE AND ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES AND POI NTS REGARDING CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVING DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO A S MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. GROUND NO.3 19. APROPOS GROUND NO.3, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST OF RS.1,03,655 TO STATE BAN K OF INDIA ON THE LOAN TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT ASAF ALI ROAD DURING RE LEVANT AY 2008-09. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WRONG LY HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED. LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS OPERATIVE PART OF IMPUGNED OR DER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WRONGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST OF RS.1,03,655 TO BANK OF BARODA ON THE CASH CREDIT LOAN ACCOUNT. THE CREDIT FACILITY FROM BANK OF BARODA WAS UTILIZED FOR REPAYMENT OF EMI TO HDFC BANK WHIC H IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS INTEREST COMPONENT IN EMI PAYMENTS TO HDFC BANK HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 15 LD. COUNSEL FURTHER ELABORATED THE FACTS ON THIS IS SUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS JOINTLY TAKEN A LOAN OF RS. 35,95,377/ - FROM HDFC BANK ROHINI, DELHI ON 30.8.2007 FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT ROHI NI WHICH WAS LET OUT TO ICICI BANK AND PAID INTEREST OF RS. 2,56,733 ON THE SAID LOAN. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASE D THE PROPERTY BY AVAILING LOAN FROM HDFC BANK AND PAID EMI OF RS.58,117 FROM HER B ANK ACCOUNT NO. 4874 WITH BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER ACCOUNT WITH HDFC B ANK. LD. COUNSEL TOOK US THROUGH COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT AVA ILABLE AT PAGES 52-55 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN TAKEN FROM H DFC ROHINI BRANCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT ROHINI WERE PAI D THROUGH BANK OF BARODA CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED O UT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RENTAL INCOME FROM THIS PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS.3, 22,951. THEREFORE, INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.1,03,655 CANNOT BE DENIED AS THE PAYME NT OF INTEREST FOR MAKING EMI PAYMENTS FROM HER CURRENT ACCOUNT IS LINKED WIT H THE PROPERTY LOAN TAKEN FROM HDFC BANK. 20. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED INTEREST WAS PAID IN RESPECT OF CURRENT ACCOUNT IN BANK OF BAROD A AND THE INTEREST COMPONENT IN THE EMI PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO HDFC BA NK THROUGH BANK OF BARODA HAD ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE, PAYMENT OF INTEREST FOR MAKING EMI PAYMENTS FROM HER ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAIN. SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND A CTION OF THE AO, LD. DR ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 16 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE DOUBLE CLAIM ON INTEREST ONCE AS INTEREST COMPONENT OF EMI AND SECONDLY AS INTERE ST PAID ON CURRENT ACCOUNT FROM WHICH EMI WAS PAID. 21. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED LOAN OF RS. 35 LAKH FROM HDFC BANK ROHINI FOR PURCHASE OF 1/3 RD SHARE OF PROPERTY AT ROHINI AND IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE EMI OF SAID LOAN WAS PAID BY THE A SSESSEE TO HDFC BANK THROUGH HER CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BAROD A. UNDER ABOVE NOTED FACTS, WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE INTEREST PAID ON THE CAPITAL BORROWED FROM TWO HDFC BANK ACCOUNTS WAS ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS PAID WITH OTHER CO- BORROWERS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,31,005/- AND RS.2,56,7 33. THE IMPUGNED INTEREST OF RS.1,03,655 WAS PAID IN RESPECT OF CURRENT ACCOU NT WITH BANK OF BARODA FROM WHICH THE EMIS WERE PAID. 22. THIS IS ALSO A CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDIT FACILITY FROM BANK OF BARODA WAS UTILIZED FOR REPAY MENT OF EMI TO HDFC BANK AND LOAN ADVANCED TO M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR WAS PROV IDED THROUGH CURRENT BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA, THEREFORE, INTERE ST PAID THEREON IS ALLOWABLE. 23. LD. DR REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE INTEREST COMPONENT IN THE EMI PAYMENT AGAINST HDFC LOAN HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE INTEREST FOR MAKING EMI PAYM ENT FROM HER CURRENT ACCOUNT ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 17 WITH BANK OF BARODA CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAIN, THEREF ORE, DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS CORRECTLY CONFIRMED B Y THE CIT(A). 24. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE CONTENTIONS A S WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT FROM THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED LOAN OF RS. 2 LAKH AND RS.1 LAKH TO M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR AND FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PAID SIX INSTALMENTS OF HDFC LOAN TO HDFC ROHINI BRANCH. FROM PARA 33 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED INTEREST OF RS.2,56,733 TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CHARGED ON HDFC LOAN. IN THIS SITUATION, WHEN THE INTEREST ON LOAN HAS BEEN ALLOW ED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN IF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO BANK OF BARODA ON CURRENT ACCOUNT FROM WHICH INSTALMENT HAS BEEN PAID CANNOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IF THE SAME IS ALLOWED, THEN IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE CLAIM. HOWEVER, AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) ON GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM, WHEREIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF INTEREST OF RS.78,942 FROM M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR HAS BEEN DELETED BY OBSERVING THAT THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OF OTHER SOURCES HAS BEEN SHOWN AT R S.82,557 AND BREAK UP OF THE SAME WAS RS.3615 AS BANK INTEREST AND RS.78,942 AS INTEREST FROM M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR WHICH ALSO GETS CONFIRMED FROM THE STATEM ENT OF ACCOUNT AVAILABLE AT PAGE 56 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEN THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR HA S BEEN OFFERED TO TAX, THEN ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 18 THE INTEREST ON CURRENT ACCOUNT OUT OF WHICH LOANS WERE ADVANCED TO M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. THE STAND OF DEPAR TMENT FOR REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ALLOWED INTEREST ON LOAN ACCOUNT OF HDFC BANK AND EMI PAID INCLUDES INTEREST COMPONENT THEREFORE, THE INTEREST ON CURRENT ACCOUNT OF BANK OF BARODA CANNO T BE ALLOWED. IF WE ANALYSE THE FACTS, THEN WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE FIRST I NSTALMENT OF HDFC LOAN WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.11.2007. PRIOR TO THAT, THERE ARE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE RELATED TO THE AGRICULTURE A ND OTHER ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING AMOUNT OF LOAN ADVANCED TO M /S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR AND OTHER FIRMS. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES WHEN THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM M/S DES RAJ RAM KUMAR HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSE UNDER THE HEAD OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THEN THE AMOUNT OF ENTIRE INTEREST PAID ON CURRENT ACCOUNT OUT OF WHICH LOANS WERE ADVANCED CA NNOT BE DISALLOWED AT THE THRESHOLD MERELY BECAUSE INSTALMENT OF PROPERTY LOA N TO HDFC BANK APPROXIMATELY RS.3.5 LAKH HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THE ENTIRE INTEREST PAID ON CURRENT ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. HOWE VER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AO MAY DISALLOW THE INTEREST AMOUNT WHICH IS RE LATED TO THE PAYMENT OF EMIS ON HDFC LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE BETWEEN THE PERI OD 29.11.2007 TO 28.3.2008 AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON BANK OF BARODA CURRENT ACCOUNT DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED AND W E DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, GROUN D NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 19 DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WITH THE LIMITED DIRECTION TO THE AO AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. GROUND NO.4 25. APROPOS GROUND NO.4, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ADDED A SUM OF RS.1,50,000 TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED T HAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS NEVER ASKED FOR THE FAMILY CONSTITUTION AND WITHDRAWALS OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AND IN TH E ZEAL TO MAKE ADDITIONS ADDED THE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDR AWALS. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER ON THIS ISSUE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,08,000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT LIVING IN JOINT FAMILY ALONG WITH HER IN LAWS AND THE HOSUEHOLD EXP ENSES ARE ON LOWER SIDE. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT D ENIED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY AIR-CONDITIONING FACILIT Y AND DIESEL GENERATOR ETC. IN HER HOUSE AND HAS NOT EMPLOYED ANY HELPER OR DOMEST IC SERVANT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HER FAMILY MEMBERS HAS ORGANISE D ANY FAMILY/SOCIAL/RELIGIOUS FUNCTIONS DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HER FAMILY MEMBERS HAS INCURRED ANY MAJOR AMOUNT ON MEDICAL EXPENSES SUCH AS HOSPITALISATION OR ANY OTHER MAJOR TREATMENT. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 20 26. LD. COUNSEL STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW IGNORED SOME IMPORTANT FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE LIVES IN A S MALL TOWN OF HARYANA (SHAHBAD MAKRANDA) IN HER OWN HOUSE AND ALL THE FAM ILY MEMBERS HAVE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME. LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY IS USING AND CONSUMING FOOD GRAINS, CEREALS, VEGETABLES, FRUITS, PULSES, EDIBLE OILS, MILK, GHEE AND CURD ETC. FROM HER OWN AGRICULTURE LAND AND CATTLE MAINTAINED BY HER. IN THIS SITUATION, EXPEN SES ON GROCERY AND OTHER ITEMS BECOME NEGLIGIBLE WHICH FURTHER JUSTIFIES THE WITHD RAWALS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. LD. COUNSEL FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS OF WORKING AS TO HOW HE EST IMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.2,40,000 AS AGAINST THE HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE ESTIMATED BY THE AO OF RS.2,20,000 AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1, 08,000. LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IGNORED THIS VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE LIVES IN A SMALL TOWN OF HARYANA AND MAJOR PART OF DAY TO DAY NECESSITIES OF GROCERY, VEGETABLES AND FRUITS IS FULFILLED FROM TH E AGRICULTURE LAND AND CATTLE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ALL THE MAJOR FA MILY MEMBERS HAVE THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME AND CONTRIBUTING TO TH E HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF JOINT FAMILY. LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COPIES OF THE RATION CARD AVAILABLE AT PAGE 57 AND 58 OF THE PAPER BOOK MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE, HER HUSBAND AND THREE MINOR CHILDREN ALONG WITH IN LAWS RESIDE IN HOUSE NO. 967, SECTOR 17 OF UDHAM SINGH COLONY. IN THIS SITUATION , HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS CANNOT BE HELD AS INSUFFICIENT AND ADDITION IN THI S REGARD IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 21 27. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ACT ION OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DRAWINGS OF RS.70,000 SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE DAY-TO-DAY EXPENSES OF TH E ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS RIGHT IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW H OUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO TOOK A VERY BALANCED AND JUSTIFIED APPROACH BY GRANTING PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AN D CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,08,000. LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SCHOOL FEE OF THE CHILDREN WAS RS.40,000 AND ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WER E RS.20,000 AND AFTER EXCLUSION ON THESE TWO EXPENDITURES, WITHDRAWALS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND REMAINED ONLY AT RS.1,32,000 WHICH CANNOT B E HELD AS SUFFICIENT FOR MEETING THE DAY-TO-DAY EXPENSES OF FAMILY OF SIX PE RSONS. 28. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE NOTE THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1.5 LAKH WHICH WAS REDUCED TO RS.1,0 8,000 BY THE CIT(A) WITH FOLLOWING DETERMINATION:- 36. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE APPELLANT, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REPORT AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APP ELLANT'S FAMILY COMPRISES OF FIVE MEMBERS OUT OF WHICH THREE CHILDREN ARE SCHOOL GOING. ON THE BASIS OF THE COPIES OF RATION CARD FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF HER FAMILY AND HER IN-L AW'S FAMILY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE TWO FAMILIES ARE NOT LIVING TOGETHER. THE SCHOOL FEE OF THE CHILDREN ADMITTEDLY WAS RS. 40,000/- AND ELE CTRICITY EXPENSES WERE RS. 20,000/-. AFTER EXCLUDING THIS E XPENDITURE, WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND W ERE ONLY AT RS. 1,32,000/- WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR MEETING THE DAY-TO-DAY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF A FAMILY OF FIVE PERSONS. THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT ARE REASONABLY ESTIMATED AT RS. ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 22 20,000/- PER MONTH, I.E. RS. 2,40,000/- AND AN ADDI TION OF RS. 1,08,000/- IS CONFIRMED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS, I.E., (2,40,000/- - 1,32,000/-). IN TH E RESULT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS IS CONFIRME D TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,08,000/-. 29. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) UPHEL D THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF FACTS MENTIONED IN THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO T HAT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSEES RATION CARD AND ASSESSEES FATHER-IN -LAWS RATION CARD WERE DIFFERENT, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AS SESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW AND MOTHER-IN-LAW WERE SHARING THEIR WITHDRAWALS FOR ME ETING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE A SSESSEE SHRI R.K. GARG HAD MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 1 LAKH AND MOTHER-IN-LAW SMT . SANTOSH GARG HAD MADE THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.88,200 AND HER HUSBAND SHRI PA RVEEN GARG HAD MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.1,22,000 AND TOTAL WITHDRAWALS INC LUDING WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.70,000 COMES TO RS.3,80,000 OUT OF WHICH SCHOOL FEE OF RS.40,000 AND ELECTRICITY BILL OF RS.20,000 HAD BEE N PAID AND REMAINING BALANCE AVAILABLE FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS RS.3,20,000. IN VIEW OF COPIES OF THE RATION CARD AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 56 & 57, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) BLINDLY ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE AO TH AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED ON THE RATION CARD OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER IN LAWS ARE DIFFERENT. PER CONTRA, FROM THE COPIES OF THE RATION CARD PLACED BEFORE US, WE NOTE THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER IN LAWS IS THE SAME AND ANY WITHDR AWALS MADE BY HER IN LAWS CANNOT BE IGNORED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING TH E TOTAL WITHDRAWALS BY THE JOINT FAMILY AND ITS SUFFICIENCY TO MEET HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES DURING THE PERIOD ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 23 UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ALSO IG NORED THIS VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIVING IN A JOINT FAMILY WITH HER IN LA WS WITHOUT ANY AIR-CONDITIONING, GENERATOR SET FACILITY OR ANY DOMESTIC HELP/SERVANT FACILITY. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS AGRICULT URE LAND AND CATTLE OUT OF WHICH MAXIMUM NEEDS OF HOUSEHOLD, GROCERY, VEGETABLES, FR UITS, MILK ETC. ARE FULFILLED AND IN THIS SITUATION, TOTAL WITHDRAWALS OF RS.3,80 ,200 CANNOT BE HELD AS INSUFFICIENT FOR MEETING THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, SP ECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS LIVING A NORMAL LIFE WITHOUT ANY EXPENSIVE LUXURY A ND SUPPORTED BY AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. IN THIS SITUATION, ADDITION MADE BY THE A O AND PARTLY UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS CANN OT BE HELD AS JUSTIFIABLE AND WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE SAME. ACCORDING LY, GROUND NO.4 IS ALLOWED. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED ON GROUND NO. 4 AND DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES O N OTHER GROUNDS. 31. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/5/2015. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 30TH JUNE 2015 GS ITA 5899/DEL/2012 AY: 2008-09 24 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER