The DCIT, Circle-2, Range-2, Ahmedabad V. Shri Jai Kumar Prabhudas Bajaj, Ahmedabad

ITA 66/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9213 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 25-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, A HMEDABAD , (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & SHRI KUL BHARA T, J.M.) ( , !'# $ , ! %& ) ITA NO. 66/AHD/2011 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2007-08) DY. CIT, CIR.-2, RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ PROP. C/O. K. MART, HASIJA HOUSE, OPP. MASKATI MARKET, KALUPUR, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. AARPB8210A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. URVASHI SODHAN, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 01 -03-201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-03-2016 ( )/ ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F CIT(A)- XIV, AHMEDABAD, DATED 29.11.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER: 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE DOING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN BY THE NAME M/S. K MART DEAL ING IN WHOLESALE TRADE OF PUNJABI SUITS AND DRESS MATERIALS. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 29.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS . 12,62,260/-. THE CASE WAS ITA NO.66/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 (DCIT VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ.) 2 SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WA S FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WA S DETERMINED AT RS. 56,04,020/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING O FFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 2 9.11.2010 (IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)XIV/315/09-10) GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL B EFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,56,224/- MADE U/S.37, U/S.40A(2)(B) AND U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE I. T. ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,36,224/- MADE BY THE A.O. BY DISALLOWING THE OVERHEAD EXPENS ES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S. HARRA. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS OF THE ASSESSEE INDEPENDENTLY AND THEREBY DELETING AN ADDI TION OF RS.6,36,000/- MADE U/S.69C OF THE I.T. ACT FOR UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITU RE. 4. FIRST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS.22,56,224/-. 4.1 DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON PER USING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD DEBITED RS.22,72,389/- UNDER THE HEAD DISCOUNT WHICH INCLUDED DISCOUNT O F RS.19,28,232/- TO K. MAHESHKUMAR AND RS.3,27,992/- TO HARRA, BEING THE P ROPRIETARY CONCERNS OWNED BY TWO BROTHERS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO NOTICED T HAT THE DISCOUNTS WERE CREDITED @ 1.25% ON SALES. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DISC OUNTS WERE UNWARRANTED FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PLACED ANY MATERIA L TO PROVE THAT THE SALES WERE EFFECTED THROUGH THE IMPUGNED PERSONS, THE DISCOUNT S WERE DEBITED ON THE LAST DAY OF THE ACCOUNTING YEAR WHICH PRIMA FACIE APPEARED T O BE APPROPRIATION OF INCOME AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY SERVICE. HE ALSO NOTED THAT AFORESAID PERSONS TO WHOM THE DISCOUNTS HAD BEEN PAID WERE CO VERED U/S.40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT AND THE PAYMENTS MADE WERE EXCESSIVE. IN THE A LTERNATE, HE WAS OF THE VIEW ITA NO.66/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 (DCIT VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ.) 3 THAT THE DISCOUNTS WERE AT A FIXED PERCENTAGE AND T HOUGH ASSESSEE HAD USED THE NOMENCLATURE OF DISCOUNT, THE TRUE NATURE OF PAYM ENT WAS IN THE NATURE OF SALES COMMISSION, ON WHICH, ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDU CTED TAX U/S.194H OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE ALSO THE SAME WERE LIABLE FOR DISALLO WANCE U/S.40A(IA) OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED RS.22,56,224/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 3.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A. R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE ME BY THE A. R. OF THE APPELLANT. I AM INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE R. OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3.1.2. I FIND FROM THE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE ME B Y THE A. R. OF THE APPELLANT. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALLOWED CASH DISCOUNT OF 1.25% TO HIS TWO LARGEST CUSTOMERS ON THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THEM DURING THE PREVIOUS YEA R RELEVANT A.Y.2007-08 WHICH IS IN LINE WITH THE PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THE TRADE. THE APPELLANT HAS BROUGHT OUT THE FACTS IN THE TABLE ON PAGE : 4 IF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT. 15-11-2002. THE ID. DCIT HAS WRONGLY UNDERSTOOD THE CASH DISCOUNT AS SALES COMMISSION. 3.1.3. AS OBSERVED SUCH A CASH DISCOUNT OF 1.25% ON PAYMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR IS IN LINE WITH NORMAL TRADE PRACTICE AND THE APPEL LANT HAS RECEIVED 100% AGAINST THE SALES MADE TO ONE PARTY AND ALMOST 70% AGAINST THE SALE MADE TO ANOTHER PARTY HENCE QUESTION OF INVOKING THE PROVISION SECTION 40A(2)(B ) DOES NOT ARISE AT ALL. A.O. HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE THAT THE CASH DISCOUNT PAID TO AB OVE PARTIES WERE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE IN TERMS OF SEC. 40A(2)(B). THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE TENABLE AND HAVE FORCE. 3.1.4. FURTHER, THE BASIC NATURE OF THE EXPENDITURE IS CASH DISCOUNT AND NOT A COMMISSION ON SALES. THE CASH DISCOUNT GRANTED TO T HE CUSTOMERS ON THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THEM IS OUTSIDE THE AMBIT OF TAX AT S OURCE NET. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,56,224/- ON THIS COUNT. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.66/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 (DCIT VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ.) 4 5.1 BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. , ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.22,56,224/-. ACCORDING TO A.O., PAYMENT MADE WAS EXCESSIVE IN N ATURE AND ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION, ON WHICH, ASSE SSEE WAS LIABLE TO DEDUCT TDS U/S.194H OF THE ACT. WE FIND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESS EE WAS IN THE NATURE OF CASH DISCOUNTS AND IT WAS IN LINE WITH THE PRACTICE PREV AILING IN TRADE AND THAT A.O. HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE OF THE CASH DISCOUNT PAID TO TWO PARTIES TO BE EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE IN TERMS OF SECTION 40A(2B) OF THE ACT , LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVE N A FINDING THAT THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF CASH DISCOUNT AND NOT IN THE NATURE OF COMMISSION ON SALES AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S. 194H OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT B ROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) AND THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.12,36,224/- ON ACCOUNT OF OVERHEAD EXPENSES. 7.1 A.O. ON PERUSING THE VARIOUS EXPENSES ACCOUNTS, LIKE, ADVERTISING AND MODELLING , SALES PROMOTION, PACKING EXPENSES ETC., NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED VARIOUS SUMS UNDER THE RESPECTIVE HEADS AND CREDITED THE ACCOUNT OF HARRA, WHICH WAS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI MA HENDRABHAI, BROTHER OF ITA NO.66/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 (DCIT VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ.) 5 ASSESSEE. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE BUSINESS PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HARRA WERE SAME. A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE LOGIC OF CLAIMING EXPENSES INCURRED BY HARRA ON ITS BEHALF A ND NOTHING PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM MAKING THE PAYMENT OF THE EXPENSES ON ITS OWN. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE OF PRECEDING YEARS OF HARRA WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PAID ON 28.03.2007. HE WAS, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED TO HARRA AGGREGATING TO RS.12,36,224/- WERE UNWARRA NTED. HE, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE SAME. 8. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 4.1. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE IS SUFFICIENT FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. 4.1.2. IT IS SEEN THAT THE VARIOUS EXPENSES AGGREGA TING TO RS. 12,36,224/- HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED ONLY ON ONE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY M/S HARRA ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND THE BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S HARRA HAS REMAINED OUTSTANDING AT THE YEAR END. 4.1.3. I FIND THAT THE EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS. 12,36,224/- ARE GENUINE AND HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOS E OF THE BUSINESS AND THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING I TS GENUINENESS. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THE EXPENSES ARE GENUINE BUSINESS EXPENSE S AND ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS IT IS ADMIS SIBLE IN FULL WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION OR RESTRICTION INCLUDING THE GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE A DOPTED BY THE ID. DCIT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY M/S HARRA. 4.1.4. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THERE IS NOTHING UNU SUAL ABOUT THE PAYMENT BEING MADE TO THE OUTSIDE COMMON SUPPLIER BY A SISTER CONCERN ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT TO KEEP GOOD RELATIONS WITH THEM FOR BETTER SERVICES. SUCH ARRAN GEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S HARRA, A SISTER CONCERN, SHOULD NOT PROVIDE A G ROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES WHICH ARE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND ARE OTHERWISE ADMISSIBLE. THE APPE LLANT HAS IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING BROUGHT ON RECORD THE COPY OF LEDGER ACC OUNT AND CONTRA ACCOUNT FROM THE BOOKS OF HARRA TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12,36 ,224/- WHICH REMAINED OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 20 07-08 HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL IN THE SUBSEQUENT PREVIOUS YEAR. ITA NO.66/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 (DCIT VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ.) 6 4.1.5. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS PRODUCED B EFORE ME BY THE A. R. OF THE APPELLANT IT IS SEEN THAT NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE IN EARLIER A.Y. 2006-07 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DT. 31-12-2008 ON THE SIMILAR FACTS. 4.1.6. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM O F THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION RS. 12,36,224/ - ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CREDITED TO 'HARA'. THE A.O.IS DIRECTED TO DELETE T HE ADDITION MADE BY HIM. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 9.1 BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. , ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY A. O., LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT THE EXPENSES AGGREGATING TO RS.12,36,2 24/- WERE GENUINE, HAVING INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED. HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.12,36,224/- HAD BEEN PAID FU LL IN SUBSEQUENT PREVIOUS YEAR. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE A FORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO.3 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.6,36,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. 11.1 A.O. ON PERUSING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE, NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWALS OF RS.84,000/- FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEES FAMILY CONSISTED OF SEVEN PERSONS A ND ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ITA NO.66/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 (DCIT VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ.) 7 WITHDRAWALS OF RS.1,48,000/- IN A.Y. 2006-07. HE W AS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT WITHDRAWALS OF RS.84,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS TOO MEAGER. HE WAS FURTHER O F THE VIEW THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM HARRA AND K. MAHESHKUMAR CANN OT BE TAKEN AS THOSE WERE SEPARATE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS OF HIS BROTHERS. HE, ACCORDINGLY, ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.7,20,000/- AS DETER MINED IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND AFTER GIVING CREDIT OF RS.84,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES MADE ADDITION OF BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.6,36 ,000/- U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIE D THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 5.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A. R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT ADDITION OF RS. 6,36,000/- HAS BEEN MADE U/S 69. 5.2.1. FROM THE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE ME BY THE A . R. IT IS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE FAMILY'S CASH WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSE EXPENSES ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8,74,006/- OVER AND ABOVE LIC (RS. 11,10,284/-); PERSONAL INSURANCE (RS . 7,513/-); MEDICLAIM (RS. 28,846/- ); INCOME TAX PAYMENT (RS. 11,60,000/- + RS. 15,24, 227/-); SCHOOL FEES OF THE CHILDREN (RS. 2,38,625/-); ELECTRIC EXPENSES (RS. 36,369/-) AND VARIOUS OTHER PERSONAL EXPENSES OF A JOINT FAMILY STAYING UNDER ONE ROOF. 5.2.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I AM OF CONSIDERED VIE W THAT THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE SUFFICIENT ENO UGH FOR THE SIZE OF THE FAMILY WHO ARE STAYING WITH THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 69 CANNOT BE INVOKED WHEN ADDITION IS MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 69 CAN BE INVOKED ONLY IN CASE WHERE THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE FAILS TO OFFER EXPLANATION ABOUT SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O.IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED HOUSE-HOLD EXPENDITURE. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.6,36,000/- IS DELETED. 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13.1 BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O ., ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.66/AHD/11 A.Y. 2007-08 (DCIT VS. JAI KUMAR PRABHUDAS BAJAJ.) 8 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY A. O., LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING THAT FAMILY MEMBERS CASH WITHDRAWALS OF HO USEHOLD EXPENSES WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,74,006/- OVER AND ABOVE OTHER EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE STAYED IN A JOINT FAMILY UNDER ONE ROOF. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE ACT CANNO T BE INVOKED WHEN ADDITION IS MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NO T BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF LD . CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09 - 03 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 09/03/2016 TRUE COPY S K SINHA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD