MS. RENU AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the source of Rs. 11 lakh has been explained by the assessee as gifts received from her two brothers and in support, copy of the notarized gift deeds have been filed before the lower authorities which have not been disputed. It was further submitted that the summons issued u/s 131 were duly served on the assessee’s brothers, however, due to fear of the Income tax department, they could not appear before the lower authorities. At the same time, they have submitted that where so required, they can appear before the Assessing Officer and confirm the fact of the gift so given by them to the assessee and in support, copy of the affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal were submitted. Regarding source of the past savings of Rs. 3 lakhs, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is running her business since 2009 in the name of M/s Prabha Enterprises and has filed her tax returns and given her past earnings, the source of Rs. 3 lakhs is reasonably explained.

We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee has received cash gift of Rs. 6,00,000/- from Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta and Rs. 5,00,000/- from Shri Mukesh Kumar Agarwal. Both are brothers of the assessee and in support, copy of the gift deeds have been submitted before the lower authorities. On perusal of the gift deeds, it is noted that they have stated that the gift has been made out of their natural love and affection for their sister and out of their own funds and they have also disclosed their permanent account number. 3 Ms. Renu Agarwal, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur The identity of the donors is thus clear and the transaction by way of gift to the assessee is also corroborated by way of the two gift deeds, the contents thereof not been disputed by the Revenue. The only dispute relates to creditworthiness of these two donors and in support, they have submitted that gift have been made out of their past savings and where so required, they can appear before the Assessing Officer and provide the necessary explanation. The ld. DR has not raised any specific objections where the matter is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. In view of the same, we set aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine and seek the explanation of these two donors in support of gift so made to the assessee. Further, the assessee is also directed to file copy of her past tax returns and fund flow statement in support of her claim of the past savings which have been introduced as capital during the year. In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the freight and loading and unloading expenses are part of the direct expenses as so reflected in the assessee’s trading and profit & loss account. It was further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO has examined the variation in the gross profit rate so declared by the assessee and after examination of the books of accounts, trading results so declared by the assessee was accepted. It was accordingly submitted that when the gross 4 Ms. Renu Agarwal, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur profit rate so declared by the assessee was accepted, there was no basis with the Assessing Officer to separately disallow freight expenses and loading and unloading expenses. We agree with contentions so advanced by the ld. AR and the adhoc additions so made by the Assessing Officer is hereby deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.

In Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the adhoc disallowance of 10% of office expenses, petrol expenses, refreshment expenses, repairs and maintenance expenses, traveling expenses and mobile expenses. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee did not maintain proper and complete vouchers of these expenses and the payments were made in cash. Further, in absence of any record of mobile calls personal use of mobiles by the assessee cannot be ruled out and he disallowed 10% of these expenses. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the no specific expenditure has been highlighted by the Assessing Officer which has not been incurred for the purposes of the business. Therefore, the disallowance of 10% of the office and other expenses is purely on adhoc basis. In our view, there is no basis for adhoc disallowance of expenses and the disallowance so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.

In Ground No. 4, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 40,000/- by the AO on account of house hold expenses. In this regard, the ld. AO observed that the assessee has not withdrawn any amount for house hold expenses and looking to the basic need for living and other house hold expenses, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was estimated and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. On appeal, these additions were confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) holding the same to be reasonable. Ms. Renu Agarwal, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 10. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee is unmarried and is staying with her parents and siblings at village Kishore Pura. It was submitted that her household need and other expenses were made by her brothers and there was no necessity for her to withdraw any amount for the incurring house hold expenses and all her earnings have been retained in the business. It was further submitted that the Assessing Officer has disallowed 10% of the office and other expenses holding the same to be incurred for personal use and has further made adhoc addition towards household drawings which has resulted in double taxation in the hands of the assessee. We find that the Revenue has not highlighted the basis for arriving at the figure of Rs 40,000. Where any identifiable personal expenditure has been incurred by the assessee and the assessee fails to explain the source of the same, the same can be brought to tax as unexplained expenditure. But, merely because there are no withdrawals, the incurrence of household expenses cannot be assumed and determined on estimated basis. The assessee has given a reasonable explanation for not withdrawing the amount as she is staying with her parents and brothers who are also taking care of her expenditure. The said explanation is not disputed by the Revenue. In view of the same, the addition so made towards household expenses is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed.