Sh. Vijay Kumar Verma, Rajpura V. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 809/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 80921514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 153A; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 807 TO 813/CHD/2012 A.Y.: 2002-03,2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 SHRI VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, V THE ACIT,CC, H.NO. 94, GURU NANAK COLONY, PATIALA. RAJPURA. PAN: AAMPB-4218K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT : SHRI MANJEET SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 25.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT BUNCH OF SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.05. 2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). AS ALL THE APPEALS INVOLVE SIMILAR ISSUES, THE SAME ARE BEING DECIDED BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. AS IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED S IMILAR ISSUES, THE ISSUES RAISED IN ITA NO. 807/CHD/2012 A RE REPRODUCED AS ILLUSTRATIVE CASE: 1. THAT THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G THE ADDITION OF RS.1,32,920/- ON ACCOUNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN. 2 2. THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS.1005/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INSURANCE CLAIM. 3. THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL , THE LD CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH LEADING TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE ADDITION IN THE AFORESAID PARAS HAS BEE N MADE AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY US HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OF DISPOSED OFF. ITA NO.807/CHD/2012 3. IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, APPELLANT CHALLEN GED THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,32,920/- ON ACCOUN T OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN. LD. 'AR' CON TENDED THAT PART OF THE EXPENSES OF CHILDREN EDUCATION IS MET OUT OF THE TUITION WORK UNDERTAKEN BY MS.PREETI VERMA AND MR.AMAN VERMA. LD. 'AR', FURTHER, CONTENDED THAT N O MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. LD. 'DR' PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF TH E CASE, RELEVANT RECORDS AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, GATHERED 3 INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION WHERE THE ASSESSEE'S CHILDREN HAVE BEEN STUDYING. SUCH INFORMATION WAS CONFRONTED TO THE A SSESSEE. THE APPELLANT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT EXPENSES HAD BEEN MET BY HIS CHILDREN BY MEANS OF TUITION WORK, WHILE STUDYING. THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION S MADE BY THE APPELLANT BEING NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENC E. CONSEQUENTLY, AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,32,20/- O N THIS ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT MADE SIMILAR CONTENTIONS BEF ORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE CIT(APPEALS), ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPE LLANT, UPHELD THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDI NGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS), AS CONTAINED IN PARA 4 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT T HE ADDITION IS BASED UPON DEFINITIVE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE INSTITUTIO N AND THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION THAT THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN MET FROM TUI TION WORK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN GIV EN. IT IS ALSO HIGHLY UNCOMMON FOR CHILDREN OF BUSINESS FAMILIES TO TAKE OUT TIME FROM THEIR ALREADY TIGHT SCHEDULE IN THE COLLEGE TO GIVE TUITI ONS. FURTHER IT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO THE ACADEMIC BRILLIANCE OF THE CHILDREN SO AS TO BE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO EARN INCOME FROM TUITIONS TO SA ME STUDENTS WHILE GETTING EDUCATION THEMSELVES. IT IS APPARENT THAT T HE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THEORETICAL, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFI RMED. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE, PLEA RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH REMAINED UNSUPPORTED , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A PPEALS), HENCE, IMPUGNED ADDITION IS UPHELD AND GROUND OF AP PEAL, RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 4 6. IN GROUND NO.2, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,005/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED INSURANCE CLAIM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF TH E CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS. THE AO, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1005/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INSURANC E PREMIUM AS THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND DEBITED TO THE CA PITAL ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT IS MEAGER AND T HE SAME HAS BEEN PAID OUT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS MAD E BY HIM. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FOUN D FAVOUR WITH THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD T HE FINDING OF THE AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF TH E CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE HOUSEHO LD WITHDRAWALS TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,06,000/- HAS BEEN M ADE BY THE APPELLANT AND IN ADDITION TO THIS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.87,432/- HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE WIFE OF THE AS SESSEE TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE EDUCATION OF THE CHILDREN HAS BEEN UPHELD. THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO MEAGERNESS OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.1005/-, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APP ELLANT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE SUCH PAYMENT OUT OF T HE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. 9. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE AND IN THE CONTEXT OF MEAGER SUM PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FINDING 5 OF THE CIT(APPEALS) CANNOT BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. LD. 'AR' STATED THAT GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE GEN ERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROU ND NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.807/CHD/212 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.808/CHD/2012(A.Y. 2003-04) 12. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF T HE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS. THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVO LVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS JUST IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 807/CHD/2012. SIMILARLY, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ARE ON THE SAME LINES. THEREFORE, FIND INGS GIVEN BY THE BENCH IN ITA 807/CHD/2012 WOULD BE APPLICABLE MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO THIS CASE ALSO. FIN DINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL. THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT T HE ADDITION IS BASED ON DEFINITIVE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE INSTITUTIO N AND THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION THAT THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN MET FROM TUI TION WORK IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN GIV EN. IT IS ALSO HIGHLY UNCOMMON FOR CHILDREN OF BUSINESS FAMILIES TO TAKE OUT TIME FROM THEIR ALREADY TIGHT SCHEDULE IN THE COLLEGE TO GIVE TUITI ONS. FURTHER IT HAS NOT BEEN 6 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO THE ACADEMIC BRILLIANCE OF THE CHILDREN SO AS TO BE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO EARN INCOME FROM TUITIONS TO SA ME STUDENTS WHILE GETTING EDUCATION THEMSELVES. IT IS APPARENT THAT T HE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH THEORETICAL, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED ABOVE. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 14. IN GROUND NO.2, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(AP PEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.29,648/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INSURANCE PREMIUM. THE IMPUGNED ADDITI ON HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO AS THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND D EBITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELL ANT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE AMOUNT H AS BEEN SPENT OUT OF THE WITHDRAWAL MADE FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPE NSES. LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTICED THAT THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRA WALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MEET HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES. THEREFORE, QUESTION OF MAKING PAYMENT OF SUCH AMOUNT OF RS.29,648/- OUT OF THE SAID HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL, DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIO N WAS CONFIRMED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF T HE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN VIE W OF NON- FURNISHING OF ANY EVIDENCE OF ADEQUACY OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO USE I T AS SOURCE FOR MAKING SUCH AMOUNT. THEREFORE, FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT PRES SED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7 17. GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NE ED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DIS MISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.808/CHD/2012 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.809/CHD/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) 19. IN GROUND NO.1, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(AP PEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2,13,587/- ON AC COUNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN. THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT -SITUATION AS OBTAINING IN ITA NO.807/CHD/2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. SIMILAR FINDI NGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. APPELLANT ALSO MADE SIMILAR CONTENTIONS ON MEETING EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OUT OF TUITION INCOME. WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS IDENTICAL GROUND. THEREFORE, T HERE IS HARDLY ANY GROUND FOR DEVIATION FROM SUCH FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEA LS) ARE UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 20. IN GROUND NO.2 APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,50,500/- O N ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENJOYING LAVISH LIFESTYLE EVIDENCED BY LUXURY ITEM S LIKE THREE ACS, 4 GEYSERS, ONE SANTRO CAR IN HIS HOUSE A ND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPIES OF BILLS OF ELECTRICIT Y. THE AO, 8 FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE'S CHILDREN WERE STUD YING IN CONVENT SCHOOL AND, HENCE, HAVING REGARD TO THE ENT IRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, HE ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.1,70,000/- EXCEPT MET BY OTHERS. IN THE ULTIMAT E ANALYSIS, AN ADDITION OF RS.1,50,500/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APP EALS). 21. FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE CONTAINED IN P ARA 7, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS PROJECTED A LAVISH LIFE STYLE OF THE APPELLANT ON T HE BASIS OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS LIKE AIR CONDITIONERS/GEYSERS AND ORDINA RY CAR LIKE SANTRO. THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO BASED UPON THIS FL AWED PROJECTION IS THEREFORE ERRONEOUS TO THAT EXTENT. THE AO'S EST IMATION OF HIS EXPENSES @ RS. 14,500/- PER MONTH IS NOT ON THE HIG HER SIDE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EXPENSES ON THE OPERATION OF AT LEAST TWO AIR CONDITIONERS ON DAILY BASIS FOR ABOUT A PERIOD OF 5 TO 6 MONTHS (SUMMERS) WOULD ITSELF INVOLVED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4,000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDE NCE IN THE FORM OF ELECTRICITY BILLS EVEN FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 TO P ROVE HIS CLAIM THAT THE AIR CONDITIONERS WERE BEING USED FOR A PERIOD O F TWO MONTHS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE OVER ALL NATION BY THE AO AT RS. 1, 70,000/- S FAIR AND REASONABLE. IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE C ASE THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINCTLY, LOWER THAN HIS WI THDRAWAL FOR A.YS. 2002-03 AND 2003-04 AS OBSERVED BY THE AO. NORMALLY THE WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ARE EXPECTED TO BE HIGHER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE INFLATION BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY WITHDRAWN RS. 30,000/- AND HIS WIFE/FATHER HAS NOT MADE ANY CONTRIBUTION ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THIS YEAR. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE CONFIRMED. 22. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, WE DO N OT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) A ND THE SAME ARE UPHELD. 23. GROUND NO. 3 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE APPELLANT AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9 24. GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NE ED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE DISMISSED. 25. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMI SSED. ITA NO.810/CHD/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) 26. IN GROUND NO.1, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(AP PEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,20,807/- ON AC COUNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN. THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT -SITUATION AS OBTAINING IN ITA NO.807/CHD/2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. SIMILAR FINDI NGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. APPELLANT ALSO MADE SIMILAR CONTENTIONS ON MEETING EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OUT OF TUITION INCOME. WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS IDENTICAL GROUND. THEREFORE, T HERE IS HARDLY ANY GROUND FOR DEVIATION FROM SUCH FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEA LS) ARE UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 27. IN GROUND NO.2 APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,34,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENJOYING LAVISH LIFESTYLE EVIDENCED BY LUXURY ITEM S LIKE THREE ACS, GEYSERS, ONE SANTRO CAR IN HIS HOUSE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPIES OF BILLS OF ELECTRICIT Y. THE AO, 10 FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE'S CHILDREN WERE STUD YING IN CONVENT SCHOOL AND, HENCE, HAVING REGARD TO THE ENT IRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, HE ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.1,70,000/-. IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, AN ADDITIO N OF RS.1,34,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 28. FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE CONTAINED IN P ARA 7, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : . 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. IT IS CLAIM BY THE AR THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT .REFERRING TO AN Y EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THIS CLAIM O F THE AR IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE ELECTRICITY BIL LS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH SHOW THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7,OQQ/ - FOR TWO MONTHS HAS BEEN MADE ON CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE REQUISITE DETAILS WHE N ASKED FOR BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE BECOMES CRUCIAL IN ESTIMATING THE OVER ALL HOUSE EXPENSES. AS SUCH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE AR ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS PROJECTED A LAVISH LIFE STYLE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS LIKE AIR CONDITIONERS /GEYSERS AND ORDINARY CAR LIKE SANTRO. THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO BASED UPON TH IS FLAWED PROJECTION IS THEREFORE ERRONEOUS TO THAT EXTENT. THE AO'S ESTIMA TION OF HIS EXPENSES @ RS. 14,500/- PER MONTH IS NOT ON THE HIG HER SIDE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EXPENSES ON THE OPERATION OF AT LEAST TWO AIR CONDITIONERS ON DAILY BASIS FOR ABOUT A PERIOD OF 5 TO 6 MONTHS (SUMMERS) WOULD ITSELF INVOLVED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 4,000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDE NCE IN THE FORM OF ELECTRICITY BILLS EVEN FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 TO PROV E HIS CLAIM THAT THE AIR CONDITIONERS WERE BEING USED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MO NTHS. IN THE STANCES THE OVER ALL ESTIMATION BY THE AO AT RS. 1,70,000/- IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED BE CON FIRMED. 29. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND T HE SAME ARE UPHELD. 30. GROUND NO. 3 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE APPELLANT AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 11 31. IN GROUND NO.4, ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CIT(APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.2011/- ON AC COUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INSURANCE PREMIUM. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2011/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INS URANCE PREMIUM, AS THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND DEBITED TO THE C APITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAS BEEN SPENT OUT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS MADE BY HIM. HENCE, THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. CIT(APPEALS) U PHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 32. THE AO FOUND THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE BALANCE SHEET, CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND CASH-FLOW, THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E WITHDRAWAL FOR MEETING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO THE TU NE OF RS.52,000/-. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE ESTIMATED AT RS.1,70,000/- E XCEPT MADE BY OTHERS. IT IS ADDED THAT ADDITIONS IN RESP ECT OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE EDUCATION OF HIS CHILDREN, WERE ALSO MADE BY AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE MEAGE RNESS OF AMOUNT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 33. GROUND NOS. 5 TO 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NE ED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 34. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12 ITA NO. 811/CHD/2012 (A.Y.2006-07) 35. IN GROUND NO.1, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(AP PEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.94,107/- ON ACCO UNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN. THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT -SITUATION AS OBTAINING IN ITA NO.807/CHD/2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. SIMILAR FINDI NGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. APPELLANT ALSO MADE SIMILAR CONTENTIONS ON MEETING EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OUT OF TUITION INCOME. WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS IDENTICAL GROUND. THEREFORE, T HERE IS HARDLY ANY GROUND FOR DEVIATION FROM SUCH FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEA LS) ARE UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 36. IN GROUND NO.2 APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.93,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENJOYING LAVISH LIFESTYLE EVIDENCED BY LUXURY ITEM S LIKE THREE ACS, GEYSERS, ONE SANTRO CAR IN HIS HOUSE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPIES OF BILLS OF ELECTRICIT Y. THE AO, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE'S CHILDREN WERE STUD YING IN CONVENT SCHOOL AND, HENCE, HAVING REGARD TO THE ENT IRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, HE ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.2,00,000/-. IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, AN ADDITIO N OF 13 RS.93,500/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. LD. CIT(APPEALS) U PHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 37. FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE CONTAINED IN P ARA 7, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. IT IS CLAIM BY THE AR THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THIS CLAIM O F THE AR IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE ELECTRICITY BIL LS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH SHOW THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7,000/- FOR TWO MONTHS HAS BEEN MADE ON CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE REQUIS ITE DETAILS WHEN ASKED FOR BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE BECOMES CRUCIAL IN EST IMATING THE OVER ALL HOUSE EXPENSES. AS SUCH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY TH E AR ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HA S PROJECTED A LAVISH LIFE STYLE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS, OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS LIKE AIR CONDITIONERS/GEYSERS AND ORDINARY CAR LIKE SANTRO. THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO BASED UPON THIS FLAWED PROJECTION IS THEREFORE E RRONEOUS TO THAT EXTENT. THE AO'S ESTIMATION OF HIS EXPENSES @ RS. 1 6,500/- PER MONTH IS NOT ON THE HIGHER SIDE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EXPENSES ON THE OPERATION OF ATLEAST TWO AIR CONDITIONERS ON DAILY BASIS FOR ABOUT A PERIOD OF 5 TO 6 MONTHS (SUMMERS) WOU LD ITSELF INVOLVED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5,000/- PER MONTH. THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ELECTRICITY BI LLS EVEN FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 TO PROVE HIS CLAIM THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER S WERE BEING USED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS. IN THE STANCES THE OVER ALL ESTIMATION BY THE AO AT RS. 2,00,000/- IS AND REASONABLE. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE CONFIRMED. 38. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND T HE SAME ARE UPHELD. 39. GROUND NO. 3 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE APPELLANT AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 40. GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NE ED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DI SMISSED. 41. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14 ITA NO. 812/CHD/2012 (A.Y.2007-08) 42. IN GROUND NO.1, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(AP PEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.94,107/- ON ACCO UNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE CHILDREN. THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT -SITUATION AS OBTAINING IN ITA NO.807/CHD/2012 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE. SIMILAR FINDI NGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO. APPELLANT ALSO MADE SIMILAR CONTENTIONS ON MEETING EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OUT OF TUITION INCOME. WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS IDENTICAL GROUND. THEREFORE, T HERE IS HARDLY ANY GROUND FOR DEVIATION FROM SUCH FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEA LS) ARE UPHELD AND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 43. IN GROUND NO.2 APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(APP EALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.74,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENJOYING LAVISH LIFESTYLE EVIDENCED BY LUXURY ITEM S LIKE THREE ACS, GEYSERS, ONE SANTRO CAR IN HIS HOUSE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPIES OF BILLS OF ELECTRICIT Y. THE AO, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE'S CHILDREN WERE STUD YING IN CONVENT SCHOOL AND, HENCE, HAVING REGARD TO THE ENT IRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, HE ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.2,10,000/-. IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, AN ADDITIO N OF 15 RS.74,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. LD. CIT(APPEALS) U PHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 44. FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE CONTAINED IN P ARA 7, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. IT IS CLAIM BY THE AR THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THIS CLAIM O F THE AR IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AS THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE ELECTRICITY BIL LS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH SHOW THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7,000/- FOR TWO MONTHS HAS BEEN MADE ON CONSUMPTION OF ELECTRICITY. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE REQUIS ITE DETAILS WHEN ASKED FOR BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF EVIDENCE BECOMES CRUCIAL IN EST IMATING THE OVER ALL HOUSE EXPENSES. AS SUCH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY TH E AR ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HA S PROJECTED A LAVISH LIFE STYLE OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS, OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS LIKE AIR CONDITIONERS/GEYSERS AND ORDINARY CAR LIKE SANTRO. THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO BASED UPON THIS FLAWED PROJECTION IS THEREFORE E RRONEOUS TO THAT EXTENT. THE AO'S ESTIMATION OF HIS EXPENSES @ RS. 1 6,500/- PER MONTH IS NOT ON THE HIGHER SIDE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EXPENSES ON THE OPERATION OF ATLEAST TWO AIR CONDITIONERS ON DAILY BASIS FOR ABOUT A PERIOD OF 5 TO 6 MONTHS (SUMMERS) WOU LD ITSELF INVOLVED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5,000/- PER MONTH. THE AS SESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ELECTRICITY BI LLS EVEN FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 TO PROVE HIS CLAIM THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER S WERE BEING USED FOR A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS. IN THE STANCES THE OVER ALL ESTIMATION BY THE AO AT RS. 2,10,000/- IS AND REASONABLE. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE CONFIRMED. 45. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND T HE SAME ARE UPHELD. 46. GROUND NO. 3 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE APPELLANT AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 47. GROUND NOS. 4 TO 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NE ED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DI SMISSED. 48. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16 ITA NO. 813/CHD/2012 (A.Y.2008-09) 49. IN GROUND NO.1, APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CIT(AP PEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENJOYING LAVISH LIFESTYLE EVIDENCED BY LUXURY ITEM S LIKE THREE ACS, GEYSERS, ONE SANTRO CAR IN HIS HOUSE AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE COPIES OF BILLS OF ELECTRICIT Y. THE AO, FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE'S CHILDREN WERE STUD YING IN CONVENT SCHOOL AND, HENCE, HAVING REGARD TO THE ENT IRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, HE ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.2,10,000/-. IN THE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS, AN ADDITIO N OF RS.1,20,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. LD. CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 50. FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE CONTAINED IN P ARA 5, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 5 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ON THE ISSUE. IT IS SEEN T HAT THE AO HAS PROJECTED A LAVISH LIFE STYLE OF THE APPELLANT ON T HE BASIS OF HOUSE HOLD GOODS LIKE AIR CONDITIONERS/GEYSERS AND ORDINARY CA R LIKE SANTRO. THE CONCLUSION OF THE AO BASED UPON THIS FLAWED PROJECT ION IS THEREFORE ERRONEOUS TO THAT EXTENT. THE AO'S ESTIMATION OF HI S EXPENSES @ RS. 17,500/- PER MONTH IS NOT ON THE HIGHER SIDE ESPECI ALLY WHEN THE EXPENSES ON THE OPERATION OF ATLEAST TWO AIR CONDIT IONERS ON DAILY BASIS FOR ABOUT A PERIOD OF 5 TO 6 MONTHS (SUMMERS) WOULD ITSELF INVOLVED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 6,000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ELECTRICITY BI LLS EVEN FOR THE YEAR 2007-08 TO PROVE HIS CLAIM THAT THE AIR CONDITIONER S WERE BEING USED PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE OV ER ALL ESTIMATION BY THE AO AT RS. 2,10,000/- IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. IN THE IN FACTS OF THE CASE THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINCTLY LOWER T HAN HIS WITHDRAWAL FOR A.YS. 2002-03 AND 2003-04 AS OBSERVED BY THE AO, N ORMALLY THE 17 WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES ARE EXPECTED TO BE HIGHER IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE INFLATION BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY WITHDRAWN RS. 90,000/- AND HIS WIFE/FATHER HAS NOT MADE ANY CONTRIBUTION ON THIS ACCOUNT IN THIS YEAR. AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRE CTED TO BE CONFIRMED. 51. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND T HE SAME ARE UPHELD. 52. GROUND NO. 2 IS NOT PRESSED BY THE APPELLANT AN D ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 53. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NE ED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DI SMISSED. 54. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 55. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE APPELLANT ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH NOV.,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH NOV.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH