TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 352
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading in hosiery goods, cloth, duplex board etc., filed its return of income for the A.Y. under consideration declarinjg total income of Rs. 34,05,640/-. Since the case was selected for scrutiny, A.O. issued noticed under section 143(2) of the Act. The assessee did not appear in response to the said notice and requested for adjournment. Further, the assessee did not comply with the notice issued under section 142 (1) of the Act. Accordingly, A.O. issued show cause notice as to why the deductions and other claims should not be disallowed. The Assessee agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the A.O. the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- made on account of low household expenses and addition Rs. 1,03,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The assessee has challenged the impugned order by raising the following effective grounds: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 6 lakhs made by the A.O. on account of low household expenses. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding addition of Rs. 1,03,000/- made by the A.O. on account of cash deposits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year 2012-13, the assessee had withdrawn the same amount and the AO had not made any addition on account of low household expenses. 7. The Ld. Counsel relied on the decision of the "B" Bench of the ITAT Delhi, rendered in the case of Shri Dinesh Kumar Kaushal Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 6053/Del/2013 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in which the Tribunal has deleted the ad hoc addition made by the A.O. on account of low household expenses. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the findings of the ITAT Delhi Bench is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Velukuty reported in 17 STC, P-465. 8. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that since the AO had made the addition in question without giving any reason or poin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uess - work in a "Best Judgment Assessment" yet it shall not be a wild one but shall have a reasonable nexus to the available material and circumstances of the case. The Assessing authority should not be vindictive while making "Best Judgment Assessment." We notice that in the present case the AO has neither pointed out any and cogent and convincing reason nor pointed out any evidence on record to justify his action. In the remand report AO has justified the addition in question only on the ground that his predecessor has made the said addition. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel in the case of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Kaushal vs. ACIT (supra), the ITAT Delhi has deleted the addition made on account of low household expenses in the similar set of fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1, Ludhiana while deleting the addition of Rs. 41,00,000/- made by the A.O. in assessee's appeal for the A.Y. 2012-13. The opening cash balance of R.s 1,06,758/- as on 01/04/2012 which was deposited on different dates. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jaya Agarwal Vs. ITO reported in 302 CTR 0241 (Del) submitted that the authorities below have wrongly rejected the explanation given by the assessee without pointing out any justification and ground to hold to the contrary. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee further placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Parneeta Goyal in ITA No. 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e further notice that the assessee has contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was a partner in M/s S.D. Marketing Co. having 60% share, besides proprietor of two concerns. The assessee withdrew money from the accounts of the said concerns from time to time in connection with the business of the said concerns. We further notice that the authorities below have not examined this aspect in order to verify the contention of the assessee. Further, the authorities below have not controverted the plea of the assessee that the assessee had personal cash balance of Rs. 1,06,758/- as on 01- 04-2012. In our considered view, the assessee has discharged the onus of explaining....