JUGAL KISHORE ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 21.01.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the assessment order passed U/s 153A/143(3) and the additions/ disallowances made are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

2. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition/disallowance to the extent of Rs. 3,70,000/-.

3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO in making addition of Rs.20,000/- by treating it as perquisite within the ambit of s. 17(2)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the AO to the extent of making addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- on account of alleged undisclosed investments under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the AO to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000 on the account of alleged low household withdrawals. Page | 1

6. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the additions made by the AO in the Assessment order are made merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and contrary to facts and evidence on record and cannot be justified.

7. That the additions and disallowances made are unjust, arbitrary and are also highly excessive. 8. The explanations given, the evidence produced and material placed has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made.” 3. Brief facts of the case shows that assessee filed return of income on 29.08.2008 declaring income of Rs. 51,27,577/-. The return was revised at Rs. 71,27,578/-. The reason for revision is that assessee has surrendered Rs. 20 lakhs on account of difference of declared and found at the time of search. Assessment u/s 153A was passed on 30.12.2009 at Rs. 83,71,277/- . Additions of Rs. 314200/- was made on account of cash found at the residence. However, Rs. 7 lakhs were added on account of unaccounted expenditure of household expenditure. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A), who deleted Rs. 209500/- against the additions of perquisite and retain the addition of Rs. 20,000/- only. With respect to the addition of Rs. 314200/- on account of cash found he sustained the addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and deleted Rs. 164200/-. With respect to the addition of Rs. 7 lakhs on account of household expenditure he deleted Rs. 5 lakhs and sustained Rs. 2 lakhs. Therefore, assessee is in appeal to the extent of addition sustained by the ld CIT(A). 5. The ld AR and the ld DR were heard. 6. Ground Nos.1 and 2 are general in nature hence, they are dismissed. 7. Ground No. 3 is with relation to sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,000/- u/s 17(2)(iii) of the Act. 8. Brief facts of the case shows during search a purchase bill of exercise equipment for fitness was found. The bill was in the name of Kohinoor Foods Ltd. The assessee is a director of that company and draws salary. The bills was for Rs. 229500/-. The ld AO made an addition holding that as the equipment and the receipt is discover at the residence of the director it resulted into benefit of the above sum and taxed as perquisite. The ld CIT(A) held that only 10% of the sum should be charged as perquisite. We find that equipment is used by the assessee who is an employee of a company and Page | 2