TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore Institute of Technology on 06.06.2007 and as part of the search operation, the residence of the assessee was also covered under search. A notice under section 153(A) was issued on 20.10.2008 requiring the assessee to file returns of income for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08. A notice under section 142(1) was issued calling for the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessments were completed under section 153(A) read with section 143(3) for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2007-08 and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2008-09. While completing the assessments, the Assessing Officer made following additions towards inadequate drawings: Assessment year Addition made 2002-03 Rs..78,672/- 2003-04 Rs.. 78,672/- 2004-05 Rs..90,324/- 2005-06 Rs..2,72,964/- 2006-07 Rs..3,22,908/- 2007-08 Rs..2,88,080/- 2008-09 Rs..2,74,560/- 4. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the additions against which, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 5. The counsel for the Revenue supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 6. The counsel for the assessee relied on the orders of the Commissioner of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant, his father and brother are all vegetarians and hence expenses would further be less. Half of Rs..23,750/- would come to Rs..11,875/-. If it is scaled up for a family of 3, which is the composition of the appellant, the drawings work out to Rs..17,812/-. The appellant has admitted drawings of Rs..17,011/- and the difference between the two for the year would be only around Rs..30,000/-. (v) The appellant also was a non-resident during the assessment year 2002-03. For the A.Y. 2003-04, he was a non-resident for 8 months. Therefore, the question of incurring expenditure towards drawings in India does not arise. (vi) The Assessing Officer has gradually scaled up the estimation of drawings of all families to 3 times from 2002-03 to 2008-09. For eg., for the appellant, drawings for A.Y. 2002-03 were estimated at Rs..10,000/- and for A.Y. 2008-09 were estimated at Rs..30,000/-. This is without any basis. However, as stated earlier, no addition has been made in the hands of either Shri G. Vishwanathan or Shri V. Sekar. Shri G. Vishwanathan is in the same situation as the appellant; Shri V. Sekar is living in a city, where cost of living is higher. 7. Next, the ld. AR argued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant. As no material was found to indicate any suppression of drawings, the additions made also do not stand good legally. Therefore, these additions made u/s 69C towards drawing for the A.Ys 2002-03 to 2008-09 are deleted." 9. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and orders of lower authorities. The finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is that there is no evidence on record for making these additions. No material was found during the course of search to indicate any suppression of drawings and the drawings admitted by the assessee are reasonable. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as no evidence was brought on record by the Revenue in support of the addition made in the assessment order towards inadequate drawings. The grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected on this issue for all the assessment years. 10. The next common issue in the appeals of the Revenue in I.T.A. Nos. 706 to 709/Mds/2012 for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2008-09 is that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to assess the income added under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the assessee had offered voluntarily higher amount than what was detected by the Department. The properties purchased are in the name of the Vellore Institute of Technology. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concluded that the addition under section 69B can be made only when the Assessing Officer finds that the investment made exceeds the investment admitted by the assessee. In the assessee's case, before such finding was made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had offered the additional amount on the basis of notings in the diary/other documents as additional income under 'other sources'. Therefore there is no occasion for the Assessing Officer to arrive at a finding as to under which section, the income should be assessed. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also found that the expenditure on foreign travel was offered as income from other sources in the return filed prior to the finding of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, such expenditure should also be assessed under 'other sources' and not under section 69C of the Act. Thus, the conclusion of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was that the amount offered can....