PRITY SINGHAL, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 755/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2144 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 755/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 PRITY SINGHAL, D-122, AMBABARI, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ANWPS 5168 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/04/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/04/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2016 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-5, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2010- 11, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE RAISED ONLY ONE GROUND OF A PPEAL, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,83,875/- OUT OF RS. 4,80,000/- ADDED BY THE LD. A.O. TOWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IS ITA 755/JP/2016_ PRITY SINGHAL VS. ACIT 2 ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 2,83,875/-. 2. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PR OPERTY, CAPITAL GAIN AND OTHER SOURCES. THE ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,80,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) REST RICTED THE ADDITION AT RS. 2,83,875/- BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSEE IS A MEM BER OF JOINT FAMILY CONSISTING OF 9 MEMBERS. THE TOTAL WITHDRAWALS OF A LL MEMBERS IS RS. 3,56,125, WHICH INCLUDES THE EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES O F 3 CHILDREN. THE ASSESSEE HAS AN AFFLUENT LIFESTYLE AND LIVES IN AN INDEPENDENT BUNGALOW. THOUGH THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES OF THE FA MILY HAVE BEEN STATED AS RS. 5,000 PER MONTH, NO SUPPORTING BILLS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. CONSIDERING THE INCOME LEVEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND FI NANCIAL STATUS THE FAMILY, MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS ARE ESTIMATED AT LEAST RS. 5 THOUSAND PER PERSON PER MONTH, WHICH WORKS OUT TO A N ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 5,40,000. FURTHER THE E DUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF RS. 56,125 ARE TOWARDS SCHOOL FEES OF A SSESSEES CHILDREN ONLY, WHICH HAS BEEN MET OUT OF HER HUSBANDS WITHD RAWALS. EDUCATION EXPENSES OF TWO OTHER CHILDREN IN THE FAMILY HAVE N OT BEEN GIVEN. THE SAME ARE ESTIMATED TO BE RS. 1 LAKH PER ANNUM. HENC E TOTAL ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE IS RS. 6,40,000 (RS. 5,40,000+ RS . 1 LAKH). THIS RESULTS IN AN UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,83,875 (RS. 6,40,000-RS. 3,56,125). THE ADDITION ON THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY RESTRICTED TO RS. 2,83,875/-. 3. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS STAYING IN A JOINT FAMILY AND ALL THE FAMILY MEMBER S CONTRIBUTED FOR THE COMMON HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE. THE FAMILY IS VEGETARI AN AND SIMPLE LIVING. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY. THERE IS NO ADDITION ITA 755/JP/2016_ PRITY SINGHAL VS. ACIT 3 MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY, WHO IS THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AR ALSO STATED THAT THERE WAS A SEA RCH OPERATION ON 28/7/2012 IN THE ASSESSEES GROUP AND NO ADDITION H AS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE HANDS OF ANY O F THE FAMILY MEMBER. HE ALSO STATED THAT NO PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS INITIATED IN RES PECT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION ON ESTIMATED HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE PLEADINGS OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS STAYING A JOINT FAMILY AND THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES A RE MADE OUT OF THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE HEAD OF THE FAMILY. NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS ON THIS ACCOUNT. EVEN DURING T HE SEARCH OPERATION AS STATED BY THE LD AR AT BAR THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION. NO PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT WERE I NITIATED IN ASSESSEES HANDS. HE ALSO STATED AT BAR THAT NO ADD ITION HAS BEEN MADE ITA 755/JP/2016_ PRITY SINGHAL VS. ACIT 4 ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE HANDS OF AN Y OF THE FAMILY MEMBER. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.00 LAC SHALL BE SUFFICIE NT TO COVER THE UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, THEREFORE, I SUSTAI N THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT ONLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/04/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 19 TH APRIL, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. PRITY SINGHAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 755/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR