TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 71
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of boarding, lodging and clothing expenses of her son. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.3,50,000/- on account of foreign visit. 3. It is contended that the above ground of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 4. It is contended that the appellant craves leave to add, alter and/or amend the above ground of appeal and to raise any other ground of appeal at the time of hearing of the case." 2. The facts qua the departmental appeal as coming from the assessment order are that the assessee is stated to have shown income under the heads of house property, business, capital gain and other sources. She has also been doing business in the year under consideration in her name in shares and securities for which an audit report in Form no-3CD had been filed. As per Report, the assessee was having closing stock of shares of Rs.2,19,15,145/-; the purchases reported during the year were at Rs.60,64,573/-and gross profit from share business was reported at Rs.3,16,531/-. In addition to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....STT) and accordingly it was being claimed exempt from tax. The AO looking at the quantum and the magnitude of the sale record required the assessee to explain why this dealing in shares be not treated as part of his normal business. 2.2. In response thereto it was stated on behalf of the assessee that these facts had been explained in 2005-06 assessment year and the arguments remained the same subject to change of figures. The explanation of the assessee is extracted in page 4-5 of the assessment order which reads as under:- "The assessee Smt. Kusum Gupta has been dealing in shares and also making investment in shares. She has kept separate accounts with reference to shares held as investment and shares in respect of which she was trading. A reference in this regard may kindly be made to balance sheets furnished by her, which are already placed in records. A reference may kindly be made to the detail of investment as on 31.03.2004 at page 18 of first reply (copy enclosed for ready reference) wherein investment in shares of Toplight Commercials Ltd. has been depicted at rs.6,31,377/50. This investment is in respect of purchase of one lac shares the delivery of which was taken ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... others in Delhi. Furthermore, no dividend has been paid by the above company whereas in an investment, dominant purpose is to earn dividend. This puts a question mark even on the genuineness of the above deal. Simply because the shares remained with the assessee for a period of more than 12 months in the case of long term capital gain, it cannot become a case of investment. Though the assessee was a director in a security company in Delhi and was dealing extensively in shares yet the deals which have resulted in this windfall in the shape of long term capital gain this year as well as in the preceding year have been routed through a company situated in Calcutta and the shares dealt in are unfamiliar and uncommon. Therefore, surrounding circumstances which throws a light on the real scenario can not be ignored." 2.4. Accordingly considering the applicability in the case of G.Venkata Swami Naidu & Co. vs CIT (1959) 35 ITR 594 (SC) and Sardar Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. vs CIT (1953) 24 ITR 45 (SC), he was of the view that there was a methodical and systemic approach in the purchasing and selling of the shares which was the hallmark of any business activity. He further held that asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... OASASCIN 25000 8.1.05 168875 28.6.06 2.7.06 3.7.06 4.7.06 5000 5000 5400 9600 1449250 1449250 1565190 2782560 25000 168875 25000 7246250 7077375 3.1.1. As the assessee was running regular business in sale and purchase of shares and securities, AO asked the appellant to submit as to why the income on sale of these shares also not be treated as part of the normal business activity and therefore assessable under the head 'business' instead of capital gain. As mentioned by AO, specific reply was not filed by the appellant. Rather it was submitted that facts are exactly identical as they were for A.Y. 2005-06 wherein also this issue was involved and the same submission may be considered for this year also subject to change of figures." 3.2. The deficiency pointed out by the AO was summarized in para 3.1.2 by the CIT(A) in the following manner :- "i). The fact that the appellant has been engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares for many years. The transaction shown under the head investment is not different but is very much similar and identical looking to the quant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d, if any, earned during the period of holding is a benefit derived from such investment which is dependent upon the concerned company which declares the same and the investor does not have any control over it. It is for the investor to hold the investment or to sell the same to earn capital profit when he/she finds a suitable price for the investment." 3.5. It was further argued that there is no bar on the assessee to hold shares in different portfolios such as Investment Portfolio and Business Portfolio as all she had to do was to bifurcate the income earned under different portfolios for taxation purposes which she had done in the computation of income as well as in the Profit & Loss Account filed during the course of assessment proceedings. Attention was invited to Circular No.4/2007 dated 15.06.2007 which confirmed that it is possible for a tax payer to have two portfolios i.e an investment portfolios comprising of securities which are treated as capital assets and a trading portfolio comprising of stock-in-trade which are to be treated as trading assets and the assessee may have income under both the heads. It was also argued that the AO has not disputed the genuineness of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant has been verified for this year and that of last seven years also. The inventory of closing stock has also been verified. It is seen that the appellant neither during this year nor even in earlier years had ever traded in those shares which are kept as investment. In other words the shares in which appellant had traded are totally different than the shares which are kept for investment. This also proves the intention of the appellant to keep these two portfolios totally separate without mixing and thereby creating any confusion. 3.3.2. The AO is contradicting his own action as if it is his case that appellant is having only one portfolio of trading then he should have taken entire investment in shares as appearing in the balance sheet towards closing stock of shares at cost or market price which ever is less and worked out the profit of the trading business accordingly. This he has neither done in AY. 2006-07, the year in which the investment in OSASCIN was shown for the first time in b/s nor in this year or subsequent years. It is also seen that earlier the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) has been done for the assessment year 2002-03 and in this assessment also the main....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asset. (2) Whether assessee has borrowed money to purchase and paid interest thereon? Normally, money is borrowed to purchase goods for the purposes of trade and not for investing in an asset for retaining. (3) What is the frequency of such purchases and disposal in that particular item? If purchase and sale are frequent, or there are substantial transactions in that item, it would indicate trade. Habitual dealing in that particular item is indicative of intention of trade. Similarly, ratio between the purchases and sales and the holdings may show whether the assessee is trading or investing (high transactions and low holdings indicate trade whereas low transactions and high holdings indicate investment.) (4) Whether purchase and sale is for realizing profit or purchases are made for retention and appreciation in its value? Former will indicate intention of trade and later, an investment. In the case of shares whether intention was to enjoy dividend and not merely earn profit on sale and purchase of shares. A commercial motive is an essential ingredient of trade. (5) How the value of the items has been taken in the balance sheet? If the items in question are valued at c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f this portfolio are identifiable to purchases made in this portfolio. In our considered view the assessee has discharged its primary onus by showing that it is maintaining separate account for two portfolios and there is no intermingling. The onus now shifted on the Revenue to show that apparent is not real. There is no material brought in by the Revenue to show that separate accounts of two portfolios are only a smoke screen and there is no real distinction between two types of holdings. This could have been done by showing that there is intermingling of shares and transactions and the distinction sought to be created between two types of portfolios is not real but only artificial and arbitrary. Therefore, in absence of any material to the contrary, and on appreciation of cumulative effect of several factors present (as culled out above on the basis of authorities described), we hold that the surplus is chargeable to capital gains only and assessee is not to be treated as trader in respect of sale and purchase of shares in investment portfolio. As result, this ground of the assessee is allowed." 3.9. The reasoning summarized in the earlier part of this order (specific para 3.7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ially created market situation to exploit and avoid taxation. The arguments accepted by the CIT(A) it was submitted had no relevance to the issue as the burden of proof in terms of the principles laid down in 158 ITR 826 (SC) has not been discharged by the assessee. It was submitted that investment per se is necessary for profit motive and there can be no other intention. The Ld. CIT DR laid specific emphasis on the answers given to Question No-2, Question no.-8 and Question no-11 recorded in para 4 of the AO and deliberated at length on the ignorance of the assessee in whose the name, the business was being run. Similarly Question No-13 and Question No-20 it was stated would also illustrate these aspects further and the discrepancies noted in the statements recorded it was argued are addressed in Question No-25. The ignorance evident it was argued was further compounded by the answers given to Question No-29 and 30 in which the lady answers it was stated by the Ld. CIT DR that she only remembers her husband and children. Accordingly it was his vehement plea that the business is being run by the husband and not by the assessee. 4.1. Since the Ld. CIT DR has placed heavy emphasis on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The shares held in above Co. and the shares held in companies whose you are director have not been found during the search seizure operation at your residence or premise. Please state where whose shares are kept? Ans. Some shares are in my DMAT account with M/s Pee Aar Securities Ltd. and the rest are sent for listing/D-mating to the company concerned." 4.2. Accordingly in the circumstances it was his submission that the AO is correct in not relying upon the evidence relied upon by the assessee. After carrying us through the assessment order it was his submission that he would be filing a write up on the legal principles relied upon by the department. In view of the position that after having made his submissions, Ld. CIT DR sought time to place his written submissions, it was proposed to adjourn the case. The Ld. CIT DR stated that since he has already made his arguments and only legal principles will be addressed as such the hearing need not be adjourned. However in the absence of written submission on which the department would want to file and rely it was indicated that the hearing should be adjourned. The Ld. AR responding to the query of the Bench also requested that he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee, who had withdrawn Rs.33,600 out of her capital account for that purpose. The Commissioner (Appeals)accepted this claim and deleted the addition. On further appeal the Tribunal upheld the estimate of the Assessing Officer determining the household expenses at Rs,1,20,000 as reasonable in view of the size of the assessee's family and his status. However, keeping in view the amount of Rs.1,20,000 as reasonable in view of the size of the assessee's family and his status. However, keeping in view the amount of Rs.33,600 withdrawn by the wife of the assessee. It restored the addition to the extent of Rs.86,400 (1,20,000-33,600). For the assessment year 1995096, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.84,000 on similar grounds, which was upheld by the Tribunal. On appeal to the High Court: Held dismissing the appeals, that the Tribunal had estimated the expenses at the rate of Rs.10,000 per month. Such a finding was essentially a question of fact. It was not open to the court while exercising the jurisdiction under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to substitute its own estimate for the estimate of the Tribunal, unless it was shown that the estimate of the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts which need not to proved before them. Thus, not only in respect of the relevancy but also in respect of proof the material which can be taken into consideration by the assessing officer and other authorities under the Act is far wider than the evidence which is strictly relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act. It may be seen from sections 142 and 143 that A O. is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and the like, and that he may not on material which may not strictly speaking, be accepted evidence in a court of law. All relevant circumstances which have bearing on the issue which are revealed in the course of assessment would be covered by the expression "material or evidence" on which A.O. could rely. Burden of proof: Misplaced burden vitiates a judgment.RangamalvsKuppuswamy 2011(2)(OJR)9(SC).The onus that this is not a trade is on assessee( G V Naidu case) since normal presumption is that assessee trades. Consistency rule/res judicata: Assessee again and again harps on these despite clear direction of SC that each year is different and on such an issue this rule does not apply. Raja BahadurVisheshwar Singh y. Commissioner of Income-tax 41 ITR 685....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee having treated as investor in shares in earlier years and the profit arising from sale of shares having been accepted as capital gains in the earlier years, there was no reason for the Revenue authorities to take a different stand in the year under consideration, we find it difficult to accept the same in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New jehangirVakil Mills Ltd. vs.CIT 49 ITR 137. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the said judgment that the circumstances that in the earlier assessment year the assessee was treated as an investor would not stop the assessing authority from considering for the purpose of computation of profits for the succeeding year as to when the trading activities of the assessee began. (3) Also we rely on the case of 18.General Talkies: ITA 4224/D/2010 (PB 128- 135) para 15. Nature of the share/scrip: I had put a question as to what is this scrip. What company? Where traded? Nothing has been told in response. So what is the way to see that these were valued at cost in the portfolio which has been emphasized in the assessee's case. The fundamental rule in these type of cases is that party which asserts must lose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eral judgments have distinguished this case. e.g. Para 10-Vinod K Nevatia 6556/Mum/2009 (PB 435).Also see para 18 of Smt. Harsha N. Mehta 2011] 43 SOT 332 (Mum.) See para 18. As regards the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra)which has since been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court and as relied on by the learned counsel for the assessee, we find the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case the Tribunal has given a finding that the assessee was consistently investing in shares and the ratio of sales to investment was very less. The assessee was investing for a long period and offering the long-term capital gain which is more than short-term capital gain and the shareholdings varied for longer period from one year to five years. However, no such facts exist in the present case. In fact in the case of the) assessee the holding of shares vary between one day to 200 days. Therefore, the decision in the case of Gopal Purohit ( supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Smt. Harsha N. Mehta 2011] 43 SOT 332 (Mum.) 7.Gopal Purohit:ITAT: Here no inter mingling of portfolios as in our case. In that case, Interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10:)(PB 101-123): Assessee is an Engineer. Does not deal in shares.(Para 3- PB 109). Borrowed funds cannot be a criterion to prove either way was my submission which AR has heavily relied on. See Para 3.10(PB 116). This is a case of single portfolio of investment. ( Para 3.12 PB 117 & para 5.6). here they have also followed the case of Dynamic consultants supra. 18.General Talkies: ITA 4224/D/2010(Hon'ble JM was a member)PB 128- 135):Company is in business of film exhibitions. It was a case where assessee in order to set off accumulated business loss has shown the gain as business loss. Our case obviously is different. Rather in this case again the principle of consistency has not been approved in such type of cases as seen from para 15 of the order. 19. Chandra Global finance: (ITA 1145/D/2011) (Hon'ble AM was a member) PB 124-127) Looking at the substantial investment, period of holding and the nature of business of assessee (not share trading),the ITAT returned a finding that intention is for short term investment. Our case is different. Surendra Buildtech: ITA 141/2012: Del HC: Here the issue was filing documents from asst records to show that facts are incorrectly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judge bench It is not a mere enhancement of value by realising a security but it is a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? " Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706(SC) INTENTION AT THE TIME OF purchase/INVESTMENT; In considering whether a transaction is or is not an adventure in the nature of trade, the problem must be approached in the light of the intention of the assessee having regard to the legal requirements which are associated with the concept of trade or business. RamNarain Sons (Pr.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 41 ITR 534(SC). (Here intention of making profit is evident. From the features of trader badges of trade as discussed in H Holck Larsen 160 ITR 67(SC) the assessee satisfies most of them to meet the legal requirement) True where the purchase of any article or of any capital investment, for instance, shares, is made without the intention to resell at a profit, a resale under changed circumstances would only be a realization of capital and would not stamp the transaction with a business character Commissioner of Income-tax v. P. K. N. Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 65....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be carrying on a business and the question whether the activity is an adventure in the nature of trade can hardly arise. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. 100 ITR 706 (SC)-4 judge bench-dt 25.7.75. (here it is not the first time that assessee dealt in such penny stock but having tasted success earlier has made it repetitive.) Relevant aspects of Conduct and Other circumstances: The real question is not whether the transaction of buying and selling the shares lacks the element of trading, but whether the later stages of the whole operation show that the first step-the purchase of the shares-was not taken as or in the course of, a trading transaction.. CIT vs H Holck Larsen 160 ITR 67(SC). What are such circumstances: few illustration: Shortness of holding: Nature of sale: Whether any urgency for cash as a motive for sale: What primarily influences our minds is the nature of the subject-matter of sale and the shortness of the time between purchase and sale of the shares coupled with the fact that the profit was anticipated or should have been anticipated and that there is no material on record to show that there was any urgency ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ITR 534(SC) to urge that the principle consideration in determining whether income from sale of shares is revenue income or capital gain is to find out what was the purpose of purchase of those shares, and, if the purpose was investment, the fact that, in varying the investment, the sale of those shares resulted in a profit will not make that profit revenue income. The principle is perfectly correct, but is not applicable to the case before us on the finding mentioned by us above that even the initial purchase of these shares by the assessee was not for the purpose of investment for earning income from dividends, but was with a view to earn profits by resale of those shares. Dalhousie Investment Trust Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 486(SC)-a 3 judge bench at Pg 492-493: The conduct of the assessee is not to hold them as investment and earn some dividend income but to trade in shares. This is clear from the frequency and nature of transactions in such type of shares. e.g. in AY 05-06, she has dealt with similar penny stock of Top Light Commercial where shares worth 6.31 lakh was sold in little more than a year for Rs.2.97 cr. Notably SEBI has warned the investors that brokers lik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....synopsis after advancing his arguments. The Ld. AR despite a query whether he has any objection to the said departmental stand did not seek any opportunity for going through the same as it was his stand that the case is fact specific and the judgements relied upon by the Revenue are on entirely different facts as would be evident on a bare perusal of the same and have no relevance to the issue. Infact it was his argument inviting attention to the impugned order that the genuineness has nowhere been doubted either by the AO as such nor by the department as such the arguments in the manner in which they have been advanced by the CIT DR were assailed as an attempt to create unnecessary suspicion which has no relevance for deciding the issue. It was emphasized that had the AO doubted he would have resorted to applying section 68 which he was duty bound to apply if the genuineness of the transaction was questioned by him which was not the case. The arguments questioning why a broker has invested through another broker in Calcutta Stock Exchange which leads to a doubt in the mind of the Ld. CIT DR it was stated has been addressed by the assessee in the written submissions reproduced in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn in the circumstances since nothing turns on it the arguments of the Revenue it was submitted have no meaning. Referring to the facts it was submitted that the AO has concluded on facts that the business is run by her husband and the assessee also claims that she is not actively participating as such the arguments advanced by the Revenue in this line have no relevance in the present proceedings. It was his submission that nothing has been argued to assail the findings that the assessee has used her own funds and is maintaining two portfolios. Similarly the holding period has not been doubted or rebutted by the Revenue. The consistent disclosure by the assessee over the years in the factum of maintaining of two separate portfolios, it was argued has not been rebutted by the Revenue as admittedly no evidence to the contrary has been led. It was his argument that relying on principles randomly from different decisions have no relevance as without establishing that the facts are pari materia, the principles applied do not become applicable. It was reiterated that facts have not been rebutted. It was vehemently emphasized that the Revenue has not rebutted that the assessee has shown s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hit vs JCIT of Mumbai Bench 122 TTJ 122 (copy placed) at page 35 of the paper book which view it was submitted has been confirmed by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gopal Purohit 188 Taxman 140 copy placed at page 23-28 of the paper book. It was argued that the price has been accepted by the department and the transaction has been accepted as a genuine transaction as such arguments based on suspicion deserves to be rejected. 6.6. Apart from placing reliance upon all the judgements placed in the compilation of case laws filed before the Bench, attention was specifically invited to DCIT vs R.K.Sons (HUF) in ITA No-174/Del/2012 (copy placed at page 78 to 90 of the paper book, specific page-89). It was also submitted that a very recent judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court rendered on 17.05.2012 in CIT vs Surendra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. is also relied upon. Filing a copy of the said decision it was submitted that the impugned order is further fortified by the said decision. 6.7. CIT vs Global Credit Capital of Delhi High Court in ITA No.-1942/2010 (copy placed at page 10 to 11) was also relied upon in support of the impugned order. Similarly CIT vs Rohit Anand 327 ITR ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not been shown to be incorrect by the Revenue. Considering the entire arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue it is seen that none of these facts are disputed neither the dates are disputed nor the nos. of shares nor the price of sale or purchase. The department has also not attempted to upset the finding of the CIT(A) inasmuch as that the assessee was maintaining two separate portfolios one for Investment and one for business. Similarly the finding that there was no intermingling of shares in the two portfolios and that the two were separate and distinct has also not been shown to be incorrect on facts. The settled legal position permits the assessee to maintain two separate portfolios which admittedly has been done. This findings is found recorded in para 3.3 of the impugned order which has been extracted in page 8 & 9 of this order. Similarly the fact that this was not the first year when the assessee has shown separate investment in her balance sheet has been taken into consideration by the CIT(A) who has considered the copies of the balance sheet for the last 7 years which was found to support the facts that the assessee has regularly been maintaining two separate portfo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve not been assailed by the Revenue. No evidence to the contrary upsetting these findings as incorrect finding has been placed before us. Similarly the holding period has also not been argued to be incorrect which is more than one and a half year or more. The reliance placed on the assumption of the AO that earning of the dividend is the only acceptable criteria for making an investment does not have any relevance as investments can be made with the objective to earn profit on appreciation also and we find no good reason to interfere with the said conclusion. The general arguments advanced on behalf of the Revenue that the attitude to purchase in a falling market and sell in a rising market is a ground to interfere with the finding to our minds may have relevance if the case of the Revenue is that the assessee is manipulating the market which admittedly is not the case of the department. The judgements and the case laws relied upon by the Ld. CIT DR, it is seen operate on entirely distinct and separate peculiar facts and circumstances, the arguments that the AO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence is a settled legal position and it is an accepted legal position that all r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Being satisfied by the reasoning and finding arrived at on the facts as they stand, the departmental ground is dismissed. 8. Coming to the assessee's appeal the relevant facts are found discussed in the assessment order at para 8 which read as under :- "8. During the year Shri Aman Gupta Son of the assessee was studying in a college in United Kingdom upto June 2006. The assessee was specifically asked to give details of her household expenses as well as expenses met on the education of her son in U.K. In response to this, the assessee has filed an evasive reply stating therein that she and her husband has withdrawn Rs.193000/- for household expenses including expenses on double trip to foreign countries by the family. It has also been stated that no amount was sent during the year to her son. This explanation of the assessee is incomplete. She has tried to evade the answer in respect of educational expenses of her son in a school in UK. Unless details of expenses and source of such expenses are furnished, the contention of the assess can not be accepted. In the A.Y. 2004-05, the assessee has stated that Rs.564000/- sent as fees to University of Sheffield. In addition to abov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roof of employment or copy of bank account has been given either before me or before AO, which is very clearly mentioned in the order for AY 2004-05, to support that her son was earning sufficient money. As assessment proceedings are civil proceedings, therefore, we have to go by the principle of preponderance of probabilities. In the absence of any evidence produced by the appellant in support of her claim that her son has earned during his stay and study in U.K. to support himself, I uphold the addition made by the AO. This ground is therefore decided against eh e appellant." 9. Aggrieved by this addition of Rs. 3 lac the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Mr. Aggarwal contended that nothing has been brought on record by the department to show why the son, Mr. Aman Gupta be supported by the assessee i.e the mother and not by the father who also had substantial earnings in his own right as he too is an income tax assessee. It was vehemently contended by him that nothing has been brought on record to show firstly that the expenditure of Rs. 1 lac was warranted on facts and secondly that the son was supported only by the mother and the father made no contribution. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we uphold the addition @ Rs. 1 lac per month for the month of April and May thereby sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 2 lac. In the result Ground No-1 of the assessee's appeal is partly allowed. 11. The facts qua the second ground agitated by the assessee are found discussed at page 9 of the assessment order which are reproduced hereunder for ready- reference:- "9. It has been stated by the assessee that a foreign visit was undertaken by the family during the year under consideration. In her reply it has been stated that the expenses have been met out of drawings shown under the head household expenses. In the same reply it has been stated that expenses for household have been Rs.293000/- met out of withdrawals by the assessee and her husband. These expenses are just sufficient to meet the household expenses. No details regarding expenses on foreign visits have been filed. The assessee has visited Dubai from 13.4.2006 to 19.4.2006 and she along with her daughter visited Singapore from 6.6.2006 to 11.6.2006. No details of expenses on ticket and hotel etc has been filed. Now there is no other alternative....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hing has been brought on record excepts surmises and conjectures based on suspicions that the assessee traveled Executive class and stayed at good hotels. It was his argument that when the assessee claimed that the house hold withdrawals of Rs.2,93,000/- were available they were sufficient to cover the foreign travel expenses then the onus was upon the Revenue to demonstrate that it was not so. It was argued that in the absence of information available on record placed by the department that the assessee traveled Executive class and stayed in expensive hotels, the addition based purely on suspicion and estimates deserves to be deleted and such actions it was submitted have been judicially frowned upon. 12.1. Ld. CIT DR on the other hand vehemently contended that the onus placed on the assessee has not been discharged. It was his argument that in the absence of any information placed on record by the assessee, the AO was left with to choice but to arrive at an estimate. It was his submission that even today the assessee does not care to place on record as to how she traveled and where she stayed and instead has chosen to argue on legal principles and the necessary facts known to ....