TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1851
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the estimated addition of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards household expenses. The submissions made have also not been appreciated." 3. During the course of proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee has filed a brief synopsis which is as under: - "The appeal was originally filed by the assessee himself on 6/1/2015. After his death on 5/2/2015 (death certificate enclosed along with letter dated 30/5/2015 filed with ITAT), revised Form 36 dated 30-05-2015 was filed by his son and legal heir, Sh. Ashish Gupta with the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. Unfortunately Sh. Ashish Gupta also passed away on 19-08-2021 (copy of death certificate of Late Sh. Ashish Gupta is attached with letter dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s as stated in the submission dated 1/11/2011 filed with the assessing officer read with the capital account of the assessee. The assessing officer had taken the figure of Rs. 240,000 i.e. the amount that would be available after excluding the educational expenses and opined that this amount is absurd for meeting the expenses of food, grocery, clothes, shoes, entertainment, servants, medical needs and social obligations keeping in view the size of family of 5 adults and two children. The face that the withdrawals made during the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 are in line with that shown during this year has also not been appreciated by the assessing officer. In view of the accepted history of the case (and the principal of consistency....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the assessee particularly in view of the past history of the case and the revenue was not justified to apply its own estimate of household expenses. The decision of the jurisdictional ITAT which is binding in nature is fully applicable to this case should have been followed by the Id. CIT(A). We also draw your attention to the decision of the ITAT Jaipur 'B' Bench in the case of Rohitash Yadav vs. ITO reported wherein it was held that in the absence of any evidence, no towards household expenses could be made on the basis of suspicion, word "has incurred" as used in section 69C places onus on the revenue which cannot be discharged merely on the basis of presumption. Copy of the decision enclosed at page no. 45 to 49 [please see p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 31 & 32). The addition of Rs. 240,000 towards household expenses was totally unjustified. The above submissions were before the Ld. CIT(A) but these were not even fully discussed. This is evident from para no. 5.2, 5.3 & 5.4 at page no. 5 & 6 of the impugned order. The specifics of the case have not beer, considered in the right perspective. The relevant facts that emerge are summarized below; a) Much lower household expenses had been accepted in the earlier assessment years while framing assessment u/s 143(3). These set up a benchmark of household expenses of the assessee and the revenue should have followed the principle of consistency. b) There was no basis of estimation of household expenses at Rs. 40,000 per....