Smt. Harbhajan Kaur, Ludhiana V. DCIT-CC-1, Ludhiana

ITA 73/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0610 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C CHANDRAKANTA CIT DR
• Section: 143(3); 13; 153C; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NOS.73 & 74/CHD/2021 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2013-14 & . / ITA NOS.77 TO 79/CHD/2021 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2016-17 TO 2018-19 SMT.HARBHAJAN KAUR, KOTHI NO.2, OPP.GURUNANAK PUBLIC SCHOOL, SARABHA NAGAR, LUHIANA. THE D.C.I.T. , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO: AGJPK5110C /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV. # ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.C. CHANDRAKANTA, CIT DR ! & /DATE OF HEARING : 30.06.2021 ! & /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.06. 2021 (HEARING THROUGH WEBEX) /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE SA ME ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, LUDHIANA ALL DATED 31.03.20 21 ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 2 OF 13 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13, 2013-14, 2016 -17 TO 2018-19, PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 2. IT WAS COMMON GROUND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED I N ALL THE APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL AND AROSE IN THE BACKDROP OF IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS. ALL THE APPEALS WERE THEREFORE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING. 3. BRIEFLY OUTLINING THE BACKDROP IN WHICH THE PRES ENT APPEALS AROSE, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE CASE OF ONE SHRI SURINDER SINGH BINDRA AT HIS RESIDENTI AL PREMISES ON 01-11-2017, DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH CERTAIN D OCUMENTS RELATING TO HIS MOTHER SMT.HARBHAJAN KAUR, THE ASSE SSEE, WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME, JURISDI CTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO) OF THE ASSESSEE TO ASSESS INCOME FOR SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH. FOR THE SEARCH YEAR JURISDICTION WAS ASS UMED TO ASSESS THE INCOME U/S 143(3) ACT. THEREAFTER ORDERS WERE PASSED AND THE SOLITARY ADDITION MADE IN ALL THE CA SES PERTAINED TO THAT ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHO LD EXPENSES. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT H IS ARGUMENT IN THE APPEALS PERTAINING TO ORDERS FRAME D U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS COMMON, CHALLENGING THE JURIS DICTION OF ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 3 OF 13 THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION .WHILE IN THE APPEAL PE RTAINING TO THE SEARCH YEAR HIS ARGUMENTS WERE CONFINED TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE ALONE. HE THEREFORE BEGIN BY MAKING ARGUME NTS IN THE APPEALS PERTAINING TO ORDERS PASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN ITA NOS.73, 74, 77,& 78/CHD/2021. 4. LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WOULD BE BASING HIS ARGUMENTS ON THE FACTS RELATING TO THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.73/CHD/2021 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2012-13, BEIN G THE BASE YEAR, THE FACTS IN THE REMAINING APPEALS BEIN G IDENTICAL. WE SHALL THEREFORE BE DEALING WITH THE APPEAL IN IT A NO. 73/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2012-13 AND OUR DECISION RENDERED THEREIN WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE APPEALS IN ITA N OS.74, 77 & 78/CHD/2021 PERTAINING TO A.YS. 2013-14, 2016-17 & 2017- 18 RESPECTIVELY. 5. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE AS MENTIONED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER, THAT DURING SEARCH SHRI SURINDER SINGH BINDR A GAVE DETAILS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS (TOTAL 14) RESIDING I N HOUSE NO.219-H, BRS NAGAR, LUDHIANA AND ALSO THE INSTITUT IONS FROM WHICH THE CHILDREN WERE PERUSING THEIR EDUCATION/DE GREE. THE AO ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT THE SERVANTS/DRIVERS OF THE FAMILY AND THAT THREE CARS, SEVEN ACS AND SIX LCD/LEDS WER E FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE STATEMENT OF SH. SURINDE R SINGH ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 4 OF 13 BINDRA RECORDED ON 20.11.2017 REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF EXPENSES ON DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD/KITCHEN ITEMS DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 AND AS ON THAT DATE WAS ALSO REPRODUCED BY THE AO. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT SH . SURINDER SINGH BINDRA IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DA TED 23.12.2019 HAD STATED THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES O F THE JOINT FAMILY WERE TAKEN CARE BY HIS MOTHER SMT. HAR BHAJAN KAUR, THE ASSESSEE. IN THE REPLY, IT WAS ALSO STATE D BY SH. SURINDER SINGH BINDRA THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT HO USEHOLD DRAWINGS FOR DAY TO DAY KITCHEN EXPENSE. THE DETAIL OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSE AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2012-13 TO 2018-19 WAS ALSO FILED. THE AO CONSIDERE D THE REPLY AND HELD THAT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LIFE STYLE OF THE FAMILY AND ENTIRETY OF FACTS, IT WAS F AIR & REASONABLE TO MAKE ADDITION @RS.25000/- PER MONTH I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY , ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. ACCORDINGLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS MADE ON THIS POINT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE M ATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTA LITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.1,50,000/-. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER: ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 5 OF 13 THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR DURING THE COURSE OF AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE AR HAS SUBMIT TED THAT ALL THE MEMBERS ARE LIVING AS A JOINT FAMILY AND MA INTAINING A COMMON KITCHEN AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO INCURRING OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS FOUND. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT D URING THE ASSESSMENT, THE DETAIL OF HOUSEHOLD DRAWING AND OTH ER EXPENSES WERE SUBMITTED TO THE AO WHO AS PER THE AR , HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE OR ERROR. IT IS ALSO SUBMIT TED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ESTIMATED BASIS BY SIMP LY ESTIMATING THE CERTAIN EXPENSES OVER AND ABOVE THE HOUSEHOLD DRAWING OF THE JOINT FAMILY. IT IS ALSO C ONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF INCURRING OF HOUSEHOL D EXPENSE OVER AND ABOVE, THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED/EXPLAINED DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT AND THE ONUS WAS UPON THE AO TO SHOW THA T A PARTICULAR AMOUNT WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSEHOLD. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING HOW HE ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS. 25,000/- PER MONTH, ADDED TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY WORKING ABOUT THE TO TAL YEARLY/MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE FAMILY AND THE CORRESPONDING DRAWING SHOWN FOR THIS PURPOSE. IT IS HOWEVER RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE CHART REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS SIGNED ON 20.11.2017 BY SH. SURINDER SINGH BINDRA ABOUT THE H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES DURING HIS STATEMENT, SHOWS VARIOUS EXPENS ES SOME OF WHICH ARE SAID TO HAVE BEEN BORNE BY THE ASSESSE E AS THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY. UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, THE TOTALITY O F FACTS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON THIS I SSUE IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,50,000/- AND THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP I N APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE: 2. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING RS. 1,50,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS . 3. THAT THE LD. C!T(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO THE PART ADDITIONS AS CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A). ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 6 OF 13 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G AND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. BEFORE US THE SOLITARY ARGUMENT OF THE LD.COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS VIS A V IS GROUND NO.3, THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN DONE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ADDITION BEING MADE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, WAS A ME RE ESTIMATION BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL REGARDING THE SAME IN HIS POSSESSION. HE, THEREFOR E, CONTENDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL THE IMPUGNED ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AS PER LAW. 9. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND COUNTERED BY STATI NG THAT THE JURISDICTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT COULD HAVE BEE N ASSUMED BY THE AO ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE JURIS DICTION, THEREFORE, HE WAS PRECLUDED FROM NOW TAKING A STAND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE LD. DR STA TED BEFORE US THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE JURISDIC TION ONLY THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND ARGUED BY TH E DEPARTMENT WHETHER THERE WAS ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL OR NOT, BUT THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT SO CHALLENGED, SHE STATED AT BAR THAT SHE DID NOT WISH TO ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 7 OF 13 COMMENT OR STATE ANYTHING ON THE AVAILABILITY OF AN Y INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR NOT. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE IMPUGNE D YEARS BEFORE US HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH ACTION UNDERTAKEN ON THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ANY ADDITION MADE U/S 153C OF THE ACT HAS TO BE BASED ON SOME INCRIMINATING MATER IAL FOUND. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SINHGA D TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1108 0 OF 2017 DATED 29.08.2017 HAS LAID DOWN THAT FOR ADDITION TO BE MADE U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE SEIZED MATERIAL HAS TO PER TAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND HAVE CORRELATION DO CUMENT WISE WITH THE AY. 11. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO WE DO NOT FIND MENTION OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO HAVE COME IN HIS POSSESSION TO SHOW THA T THE SAME WERE BEING INCURRED FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE STATED TH AT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE TAKEN CARE OF BY HIS MOTHER, THE ASS ESSEE, AND THE FACT THAT NATURE OF CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED W ERE BROUGHT TO LIGHT AS BEING INCURRED ON CHILDRENS EDUCATION, SERVANTS, ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 8 OF 13 CARS MAINTAINED ETC., NOTHING ELSE FINDS MENTION I N THE ORDER OF THE AO OR EVEN THE CIT(A), SHOWING THAT HOUSEHOL D EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAY BEYOND HER DISCLO SED SOURCES. THE AO WE FIND HAS DEDUCED FROM THE FACTS BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEES FAMILY HAS A CERTAIN LIFE STYLE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EXPENSES STATED TO HAVE BEEN I NCURRED BY IT AND ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FRO M UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS BEING TO THE EXTENT OF RS 25 ,000/- PER MONTH. THERE IS NO MENTION AS TO HOW HE ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION OF UNDISCLOSED EXPENSES BEING TO THE TUN E OF RS.25,000/- PER MONTH, WHICH FACT IS AFFIRMED BY TH E LD.CIT(A) ALSO WHEN HE STATES THAT THERE WAS NO BAS IS FOR THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO. WE FIND THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SEARCHED PERSON, HAD GIVEN DETAILS OF VARIOUS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND JUSTIFIED THE SOURCE OF TH E SAME ,GIVING DETAILS AND SOURCE OF PAYMENTS OF VARIOUS E XPENSES, BUT THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW AS TO HOW THE EXPENSES STATED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED DID NOT JUSTIFY THE LIFESTYLE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS BUT EV IDENT THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL PERTAINING TO AND JU STIFYING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE. EVEN THE LD. DR HAD NOT BROUGHT BEFORE US ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THE ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 9 OF 13 SAID FACT AND CONSIDERING THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITIO N THAT THE ADDITION U/S 153C OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WE HOLD THAT THE A DDITION MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE OF UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES IS NOT TENABLE IN LAW AND DIRECT THE SAME TO BE DELETE D. 12. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE JURISDICT ION U/S 153C OF THE ACT CAN BE ASSUMED BY THE AO ONLY ON CO MING IN POSSESSION OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED IT, AND HAS IN FACT ACCEPTED IT, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT TH ERE WAS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH H AS BEEN ACCEPTED AND ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THIS AR GUMENT OF THE LD. DR IS EQUIVALENT TO PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. THE ABSENCE OR PRESENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL I S A QUESTION OF FACT AND CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO DERIVAT ION OR PRESUMPTION. IT HAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED FACTUALLY WH ETHER THERE WAS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR NOT. THE LD . DR HAVING FOREGONE THIS RIGHT BEFORE US AND THE FACTS BEFORE US DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE WAS NOT INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL, WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO HOLD THAT THE SAID A DDITIONS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AS PER LAW. 13. NO ARGUMENTS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE WERE MAD E BEFORE US WHICH IN ANY CASE IS MERELY AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE SINCE WE ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 10 OF 13 HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE LEGAL GROUND RAISE D BEFORE US AS ABOVE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN ABOVE TE RMS. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.74, 77 & 78/CHD/2021 ARE ALSO ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS 14. NOW TAKING UP THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-1 9 IN ITA NO.79/CHD/2021 , THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE IDENTICAL AS IN A.Y. 2012-13 DEALT WITH US ABOVE AS UNDER: 2. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AMOUNTING RS. 1,50,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS . 3. THAT THE LD. C!T(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO THE PART ADDITIONS AS CONFIRMED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A). 4. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G AND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS AS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (A) AS WELL AS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THA T THE IMPUGNED YEAR WAS THE SEARCH YEAR AND THE ASSESSMEN T HAD NOT BEEN FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT BUT WAS A REGUL AR ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE, THEREF ORE, CONTENDED THAT HIS ARGUMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE O N IDENTICAL ADDITION MADE WERE CONFINED TO THE MERITS OF THE CA SE ONLY AND IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED UPON HIS SUBMISSIONS M ADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE STATED THAT HE WAS NOT PRESSING GROU ND NO. 3 ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 11 OF 13 RAISED BEFORE US. THE SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED A S NOT PRESSED. 16. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DE ALT WITH IN ITA NO.73/CHD/2021, REPRODUCED ABOVE. ON GOING THRO UGH THE SAME WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD REDUCED THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO OF RS.3 LACS TO RS.1,50,000/- BY NOT ING THAT IT WAS A MERE ESTIMATION OF THE AO WITH NO BASIS AT AL L AND, THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,50,000/- WAS JUSTIFIED. 18. WE HAVE HELD IN THE PRECEDING YEAR APPEALS ABOV E THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION AND EVEN THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOTED ABSENCE OF ANY BAS IS FOR MAKING THE SAME. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETAILS OF ALL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE S, STATED TO BE INCURRED BY HIS MOTHER THE ASSESSEE, AND ALSO JU STIFIED SOURCES FOR INCURRING THE SAME. THAT THE AO HAS GIV EN NO BASIS FOR FINDING THE EXPENSES TO BE ON THE LOWER S IDE AND MERELY RESORTED TO ESTIMATION. EVEN THE LD. CIT(A) ,WE FIND, ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 12 OF 13 HAS RESORTED TO ESTIMATION WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHILE REDUCING THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION FROM RS.3 LACS TO RS. 1.50 LACS. WITH EITHER OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FAILING TO JUSTIF Y THE BASIS OF HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND BOTH OF THEM RESORTING TO MERE ESTIMATION , WE SEE NO REASON TO UPHOLD THE ADDITI ON MADE IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED HOUSEHO LD EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,50,000/- AND DIRECT DELE TION OF THE SAME. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 & 4 ARE ALLOWED. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.79/CH D/2021 IS PARTLY ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.73, 74, 77 AND 78/CHD/2021 ARE ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.79/CHD/2021 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH JUNE, 2021. SD/- SD/- (R.L. NEGI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2021 * * ITA NOS.73,74,77 TO 79/CHD/2021 A .YS. 2012-13,2013-14, 2016-17 TO 2018-19 PAGE 13 OF 13 (+! ,-.- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , &2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 157% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR