Rajeev Singhal, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2098/DEL/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 209820114 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2098/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Rajeev Singhal, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 07-07-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 07-07-2010
Next Hearing Date 07-07-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 06-05-2010
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO.2098 /DEL/10 1/4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2098 /DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI RAJEEV SINGHAL ITO H.NO.45 POCKET-II WARD-22 (2) JASOLA. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AARPS-5599-K APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRHK LAL SR. DR. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA AM: THIS IS AN ASSESSEE'S APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD CIT(A)-XXIII NEW DELHI DATED 23.3.2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWED THE PRIN CIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY SIMPLY CONFIRMING THE ABSOLUTELY ARBITRARY UNSUBST ANTIATED AND BASELESS CONCLUSIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT AFFORD ING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND OR EXAMINING AND CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE MATTER PLACED ON RECORD. . I.T.A. NO2098/DEL/10 2/4 2. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FAC TS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 18 196/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER BASED ON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ARBITRARY AND BASELESS ESTIMATE THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT OUGHT TO BE RS.1 44 000/- AGAINST THE NET CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK OF RS.25 804/- MADE B Y THE APPELLANT. THE SAID ADDITION IS ABSOLUTELY ARBITRARY BASED ON SUR MISES AND CONJECTURES IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE AND IS OPPOSED TO EVIDENC E ON RECORD AND EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THIS FACT THAT THE DATE OF HEARING BEING 7.7.2010 WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSE SSEE AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CUM-NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE A T THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL ITSELF AND HENCE WE DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE REVENU E AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIN D THAT IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS A GAINST THE CONFIRMED NORMAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.1.44 LAKHS THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.25 804/- ONLY AND ON THIS BASIS HE MA DE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 18 196/-. AT THE SAME TIME WE FIND THAT ON PAGE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IS SAYING THAT THE DRAWING SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.25 804/- IS VERY LOW AND UN-REALISTIC. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON THIS PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT TO MEET THE HIGH COST OF LIVI NG FOR A PERSON EMPLOYED IN A MULTINATIONAL COMPANY THE MONTHLY EXPENDITURE OF R S.12 000/- PER MONTH IS CONSIDERED AS PRACTICAL AND PRAGMATIC AND THUS THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ARE ESTIMATED AT RS.1.44 LAKHS. HENCE AS PER THE A SSESSMENT ORDER ALSO THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.44 LAKHS REGARDING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE S IS NOTHING BUT AN . I.T.A. NO2098/DEL/10 3/4 ESTIMATE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING AN Y BASIS FOR SUCH ESTIMATE. WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON PAGE NO.2 OF HIS ORDER THAT IT WAS A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS A BACHELOR AND HE WAS LIVING WITH HIS PARENTS IN AN APARTMENT OWNED BY HIS MOTHER. BEFORE LD CIT(A) IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A B ACHELOR WHO WAS PROVIDED BY EMPLOYER BUS SERVICE FOR GOING TO THE WORKING PL ACE AND HE WAS EVEN PROVIDED WITH LUNCH AND SNACKS AT WORKING PLACE AND SINCE HE WAS STAYING WITH HIS PARENTS ALL OTHER EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY TH EM WHO WAS ALSO INCOME TAX PAYER. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS WE FEEL THAT ES TIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.12 000/- PER MONTH IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPE NSES TOWARDS RENT CONVEYANCE LUNCH ETC. IS EXCESSIVE AND IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION THE SAME SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT RS.6 000/- PER MONTH. THE TO TAL OF THAT COMES TO RS.72 000/- OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAI N THE EXPENSES OF RS.25 804/- AND HENCE WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.46 196/- ONLY. THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.72 00 0/- IS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. 7 TH JULY 2010. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (A.K. G ARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 07 .7.2010. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)- NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR ITAT LOKNAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. (ITAT NEW DELHI). . I.T.A. NO2098/DEL/10 4/4