Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1312/JP/2018
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1312/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 Smt. Deepa Sharma Vs. I.T.O. W/o- Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Ward-1(5), Village- Harsauli, Alwar. Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AXXPS7628C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing 15/04/2019 : mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 11/06/2019 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A), Alwar dated 18/09/2018 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the matter of order passed U/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).
Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is as under:-
“That the ld. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in making an addition of Rupees 1,80,840/- as undisclosed investment u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act and the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the same.” 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. The facts in brier are that the assessee is working as an LIC agent since 1988-89
2 Smt. Deepa Sharma Vs. ITO and filed her return declaring income from LIC commission. During the year she filed her return declaring income of Rs.78,810/-. During the course of assessment, the A.O. found that the assessee has purchased land for Rs.11,16,249/- on which stamp duty of Rs.44,650/- was paid. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the source of investment according to which Rs.9 lacs is paid out of the amount withdrawn by her husband Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma which is verifiable from his bank statement and remaining amount of Rs.2,59,650/- (2,15,000 + 44,650) is paid out of her accumulated savings from LIC commission. However, the A.O. accepted the explanation with regard to receipt of Rs. 9.00 lacs from her husband and also income of Rs.78,810/- earned during the year. However, he confirmed the balance of addition of Rs. 1,80,840/-. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O. the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT.
I have heard the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the assessee was working as an LIC agent since 1988-89. The commission income so received was duly deposited in the bank account. From these bank accounts she used to withdraw some amount for her personal purpose. During the FY 2007-08 & 2008-09 she has withdrawn Rs.3,64,000/-, details of which is mentioned at Pg 4 of the CIT(A) order. Out of it, part is utilized for household expenses and part is retained with her as cash savings. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept these
3 Smt. Deepa Sharma Vs. ITO withdrawals from the bank account on the plea that the same was utilized for her household expenditure. I found that with respect of assessee’s contention that the cash was withdrawn from the bank was not disputed by the lower authorities by bringing any positive material on record. Meaning thereby neither the A.O. nor the ld. CIT(A) found any expenditure having been incurred in addition to the household expenses. It is also not disputed that the assessee was having only source of income from LIC commission. Looking to the standard, the assessee was living and keeping in view the withdrawal by her husband for household expenditure, out of the withdrawal of Rs. 3,64,000/- by the assessee from her bank account, 60% can be taken for household expenditure which works out to be Rs. 2,18,400/-. Accordingly, there leave a cash balance of Rs. 1,45,600/- with her. Considering these facts, I uphold the addition to the extent of Rs.35,240/- (1,80,840 – 1,45,600).
In view of the above discussion, I uphold Rs. 35,240/- out of Rs. 1,80,840/- made by the A.O.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th June, 2019.