SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 801/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 80123114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JAIPUR BENCH : JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 801/JP/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH, VS. THE ITO, WARD-3(1), A-207, A-BLOCK, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR. JAIPUR. PAN NO. AKGPP 6112 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.C. SHARMA - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 30/01/2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/03/2014. O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 24/09/2012 OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 23.12.2009 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF JUR ISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2 2. RS. 1,56,750/- : THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL A S ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,56,750/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3.1 RS. 1,50,000/- : ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY TH E AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KIND LY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3.2 RS. 33,698/- : ID. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF R S. 33,698/-, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO. THE SET OFF SO DENIED BY THE ID. CIT(A) DESPITE GIVEN BY THE AO HIMSELF THE IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PR OVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY A LLOWED. 4. THE ID. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT GIVING THE SET OFF OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ADDIT ION AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY HER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRODUCED. HENCE THE AO MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO GIVE SET OFF OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES IF SUSTAINED ANY AGAINST THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRODUCED, IF SUSTAINED. 5. RS. 4,018/- : THE ID. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,018/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION SO MA DE IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 6. THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234 A & B. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENI ES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KI NDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3 7. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOURS INDULGENCE TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE TH E DATE OF HEARING. 2 GROUND NO.7 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHILE GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED, SO ON THESE GROUNDS, NO ADJUDICATION IS RE QUIRED ON OUR PART. VIDE GROUND NO.2, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE REL ATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,56,750/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME INTRODUCED AS CAPI TAL. 3. FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED A SUM OF RS. 1,89,250/- IN HIS CAPIT AL ACCOUNT IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH AN EXPLANATION . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MARRIED A SPANISH GIRL AND IN ORD ER TO SETTLE HIMSELF, BROUGHT 3000 EURO AND CONVERTED THOSE INTO INDIAN C URRENCY WHICH CAME TO RS. 1,57,000/- WHICH WAS INVESTED IN THE BUSINES S. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD OBTAINED RS. 17,500/- FROM HIS F ATHER, WHO IS RETIRED ARMY OFFICER AND RS. 15,000/- FROM SHRI SANJEEV SHA RMA HIS FRIEND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE SOURCE OF 3000 EURO AND NO ENGAGEMENT CERTIFICATE WAS FURNISH ED. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT AND ACCORDINGLY AN A DDITION OF RS. 1,56,750/- WAS MADE. 4 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS RESIDING IN GERMANY FROM 07/04/2006 TO 03/07/2006 AND FROM 13/12/2006 TO 12/03/2007. IT W AS FURTHER STATED THAT HE MARRIED A SPANISH GIRL ON 05/09/2005 AND RE CEIVED CASH GIFT FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF HIS S POUSE. THEREFORE, SOURCE OF CAPITAL WAS EXPLAINED AND SHOULD NOT BE I GNORED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT A DECLARATION WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. GERM AN HERNANDEZ, FATHER OF MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ WAS HIS ONLY CHILD AND THAT HE HAD GIVEN A CASH GIFT OF 3000 EURO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ WHEREIN SHE AVERRED THAT HER FATHER HAD GIVEN CASH GIFT TO HER HUSBAND. SINCE, THIS EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR THE FIRST T IME, IT WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND SUBMI SSION OF A REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT STATED THAT IN SPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROD UCE MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ AND HER FATHER FOR VERIFICATION OF THE AV ERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE SO-CALLED DECLARATION FILED HAD N OT BEEN AUTHENTICATED BY ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY LIKE INDIAN EMBASSY IN SPA IN OR ANY SPANISH 5 GOVERNMENT AGENCY TO AFFIRM THE FACTS DECLARED. TH US, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THIS DECLARATION WAS ACTUALLY MADE BY MR. GERMAN HERNANDEZ, FATHER OF MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IDENTITY AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF MR. GERMAN HERNANDEZ REMAINS UNPROVED AND IN WESTERN SOCIETY, IT WAS NOT CUSTOMARY TO MAKE CASH GIFT TO SON-IN-LAW. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DECLARATION WAS UNDATED AN D THE DECLARATION INDICATED THAT IT WAS DRAFTED IN INDIA RATHER THAN BY THE DECLARANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS CONFIRMED. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SOURCE OF 3000 EURO WAS FROM THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CASH GI FTS RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER-IN-LAW AND FAMILY MEMBERS OF IN-LAWS AT THE TIME MARRIAGE AND ALSO RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME DURING HIS STAY IN GERMANY. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ DULY EXPLAIN ED THE SOURCE OF INCOME IN HER STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WHICH WAS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGES 10 TO 13 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY O F SAID STATEMENT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ FURNISHE D AN AFFIDAVIT IN 6 RESPECT OF ALL THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JU STIFIED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT VS. SHREE BARKHA SYNTHETICS 182 CTR 175 (RA J.) 2. CIT VS. FIRST POINT FINANCE LTD. 286 ITR 477 (R AJ.) 3. DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS 26 ITR 775 (SC) 4. R.B.N.J. NAIDU VS. CIT 29 ITR 194 (NAG.) 5. KANPUR STEEL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 32 ITR 56 (ALL.) 6. CIT VS. KULWANT RAO 291 ITR 36 (DEL) 7. AUATECH INTERNATIONAL LTD. VS. ITO 13 DTR 382 ( DEL) 8. SMART CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. VS. JCIT 10 DTR 593 (DEL) 9. LABHCHAND BOHRA VS. ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (RAJ.) 7 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECO RDED THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES WIFE, MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ ON 02/12/2009. IN THE SAID STATEMENT SHE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF HER INCOME, C OPY OF THE STATEMENT IS PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 10-13 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPE R BOOK. MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ ALSO FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT, COPY OF WHIC H IS PLACED AT PAGE 33 7 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IN THE SAID AFFIDAVI T, SHE EXPLAINED HER SOURCE OF INCOME AND ALSO STATED THAT SHE MARRIED T HE ASSESSEE ON 05/09/2005 AND THE STATEMENT OF HER WAS RECORDED ON 02/12/2009 BY THE ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR, WHERE THE QUESTION REGARDIN G LOAN OF RS. 3 LAC, SHE ALSO STATED THAT A PERSON CAN BRING 5000 EURO W ITH HIM WHILE COMING TO INDIA OR TO OTHER COUNTRY AND GENERALLY EXCHANGE OF EURO WILL BE MADE IN RUPEES/ CURRENCY AT THE AIR PORT. FROM THE ABOV E FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHATEVER EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT OR IN AFFIDAVIT BY MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ WAS RELATING TO RS. 3 LAC GIVEN AS A LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT NOTHING WAS STATED WITH REGARD TO GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER FATHER OR FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, IT CANNOT B E PRESUMED THAT ANY PERSON COMING FROM ABROAD WILL COME WITH EMPTY HAND S. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE BROUGHT 3000 EURO IN ORDER TO SETTLE HIMSELF WHICH WERE CONVERTED IN RUPEES FOR MARKETING THE INVESTME NT IN BUSINESS, CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT I S ALSO NOTICED THAT A CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY MR. GERMAN HERNA NDEZ, FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 3 7-38 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, IN THE SAID DECLARATION, ADDRESS HAS BE EN GIVEN AND IT IS STATED THAT SOME CASH GIFTS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE, WHENEVER HE CAME TO HIM (GERMAN HERNANDEZ) BEING THE ONLY SON-I N-LAW OF HIM. 8 THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PLAUSIBLE AND DESER VES TO BE ACCEPTED. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,5 6,750/- IS DELETED. 8 . THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NOS.3.1 TO 4 RELATES T O THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 9 . FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY WITHDRAWAL TO MEET OUT HIS HOUSEHO LD EXPENSES AND THE EXPENSES RELATING TO JOURNEY PERFORMED BY HIM F ROM INDIA TO GERMANY. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO JUST IFY HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS U NDER:- THAT FLIGHT FARE EXPENSES OF ASSESSEE OF HIS FORE IGN TRAVEL WERE BORN BY HIS MEMBERS OF IN-LAWS FAMILY ABROAD. THEY SENT THE TI CKETS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE TRAVELLED. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TH AT HE MARRIED TO A GIRL OF NON-RESIDENT SPANISH CITIZEN. ALSO STATED IN RECOR DED STATEMENT OF HIS WIFE ON 02/12/2009 THAT HIS WIFE STATED IN STATEMENT THA T SHE WAS WORKING IN CERTAIN ORGANIZATION AND DRAWING CONSIDERATION AMOU NT OF SALARIES. NO SUCH FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES WAS BORN BY THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT, NO DETAILS ABOUT THE HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. HE 9 FURTHER OBSERVED A SUM OF RS. 33,698/- WAS BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE IN EURO MONEY AND CONVERTED THE SAME INTO RUPEES ON 10 /07/2006, WAS USED BY HIM FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESTIMATED THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 1,50,000/- P.A. AND AFTER ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF RS. 33,698/-, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,16,302/- . 10 . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE ON AS SUMPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE EXP ENSES INCLUDING THE FREIGHT FARE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE OUT OF P OCKET MONEY GIVEN BY HIS WIFE OR IN-LAWS AND REST OF THE EXPENSES WERE M ADE BY THE COMPANY WITH THE FOREIGN TRAVELERS AS THE ASSESSEE MAINLY S TAYED IN HOTELS AND TOOK FOOD THERE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN SUCH TYP E OF BUSINESS, HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY ANY MONEY FOR HIS FOOD AS THE S AME WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEE N MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS ON MERE ASSUMPTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT OF MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ, WHO S TATED THEREIN THAT ALL THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN MADE BY HER FATHER. SINCE TH E AFFIDAVIT WAS A NEW EVIDENCE, LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE SAME TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A RESI DENT OF C-162, BHARAT 10 MARG, HANUMAN NAGAR, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, RELATI VELY POSH AREA OF THE CITY, BUT IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THIS WAS RENTED OR OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ, THE ENTRIES WERE NOT VERY CLEAR, BUT WHATEVER LITTLE COULD BE UNDERSTOOD, IT WAS SEEN TH AT THOSE DID NOT REFLECT ANY TRANSFER OF MONEY TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT HE WAS RECEIVING TIP S FROM THE TOURISTS, THOSE HAD NOT BEEN REFLECTED AS INCOME AND WERE USE D FOR PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ONUS WAS ON T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE FROM WHICH HE WAS MANAGING HIS PERSONAL EXPENSES, WHICH HE CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO DO, PARTICULARLY THE AFFIDAV IT FILED BY MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ AND DECLARATION BY GERMAN HERNANDEZ COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 1,50,000/-, BUT DID NOT AL LOW THE SET OFF OF RS. 33,698/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE AMOUNT INTRODUCED BY WAY OF LOAN FROM MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ OF RS. 3 LAC WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 11 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING 11 OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY BASIS/MATERIA L AND ONLY ON ASSUMPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. IT WAS FURTH ER STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESS EE AND HIS WIFE MOSTLY REMAINED OUT OF INDIA AND STAYED IN GERMANY WITH HI S IN-LAWS WHERE ALL THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN INCURRED BY THEM INCLUDING FR EIGHT FAIR EXPENSES AND FOR REMAINING PERIOD, THE EXPENSES WERE MADE BY THE COMPANY WITH THE FOREIGN TRAVELERS AS THE ASSESSEE MAINLY STAYED IN HOTELS ON TOUR AND TOOK FOOD THERE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT R EQUIRED TO PAY ANYTHING BECAUSE THE SAME WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKA GE OF THE TOURS. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE POINT ED OUT ANY SPECIFIC INSTANCE OF SUPPRESSION OF EXPENDITURE OF HOUSEHOLD AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES BECAUSE THE SAME WERE BEING BORNE OUT BY HIS WIFE AND HIS FATHER WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING DURING HIS STAY IN INDIA AND HIS FATHER IS A RETIRED ARMY OFFICER H AVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION TO ESTIMAT E HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT A VERY HIGH FIGURE. IT WAS ALSO POINTE D OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER ASKED MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ ABOUT HOUSEH OLD EXPENSES WHILE RECORDING HER STATEMENT. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT M S. ROSA HERNANDEZ BEING ONLY CHILD OF HER FATHER WAS USED TO GET CASH GIFT FROM HER FATHER 12 WHICH WAS USED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. RELIANCE WA S PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. RAJ KUMAR JAIN VS. ACIT 50 ITD 1 (ALL) TM. 2. ROHITASH YADAV VS. ITO 114 TTJ 973 (JP.) 3. MRS. CATHRIENCE THOMAS VS. DCIT 116 TTJ 979 (CO CH.) 4. CIT VS. TYARYAMAL BAL CHAND 165 ITR 453 (RAJ.) 12. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN SHOWN ANY WITHDRAWAL FOR HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE S AND DID NOT PRODUCE MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ, WHO HAD FILED AN AFFIDA VIT STATING THEREIN THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE MET OUT BY HER AND HER FATHER. THEREFORE, AVERMENTS IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT VERIF IABLE AND SINCE NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT A SUM OF RS. 33,698/- WAS USED BY HIM FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES , THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF THE SAID A MOUNT. HE, ACCORDINGLY, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT HE WAS RESIDING WITH HIS FATHER-IN-LAW WHEN HE WAS IN GERMANY, HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED AND THE 13 TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE ALSO ACCEPTED THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUSINESS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING WAS HAVING SUCH A NATURE THAT THE FOOD WAS PROVIDED BY THE HOTELS AND WAS IN CLUDED IN THE PACKAGE. SO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE ANY EXPENDITURE AS THE SAME WAS MET OUT BY THE COMPANY. THE WIFE OF T HE ASSESSEE MS. ROSA HERNANDEZ FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) STATING THEREIN THAT NO QUESTION REGARDING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF HE R AND HER HUSBAND WAS ASKED AND THAT THE EXPENSES IN GERMANY INCLUDIN G THEIR TRAVELLING EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY HER FATHER. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT, HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EX PLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT WHEN HE WAS IN INDIA, HE REMAINED WITH HIS FATHER, WHO IS RETIRED ARMY OFFIC ER AND HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NEED T O INCUR THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD AGAINST THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ENQUIRE FROM HIS FATHER. THEREFORE, THE SAID EXPLANATION CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND THE LD. CI T(A) HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SL IP SHOD MANNER WHICH IS 14 NOT TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) O N ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS DELETED. 14. THE LAST ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO.5 RELATES TO THE CONF IRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,018/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON S AVING BANK ACCOUNT. 15 . FACTS RELATING TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED INTEREST OF RS. 4,018/- ON HIS SAVING BA NK ACCOUNT. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. B EING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A), WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY SUBMISSION AS TO WHY THIS ADDITION WAS APPEALED AGAINST. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 16 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE EARN ED INTEREST OF RS. 4,018/- ON HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE SAID AM OUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DONE SO. THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION WAS RIGHTLY MADE 15 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. C IT(A). IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 17 . GROUND NO. 6 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE CHARGIN G OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A & 234B OF THE ACT. AS REGARDS TO THIS ISSUE, IT WAS COMMON CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES THAT IT IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. WE ORD ER ACCORDINGLY. 19 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH MARCH, 2014). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13 TH MARCH, 2014. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JAIPUR.