Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Sohan Lal Sharma, New Delhi vs Assessee on 24 October, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH 'G' NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A. No.120 to 126/Del/2012
Assessment years : 2003-04 to 2009-10
Shri Sohan Lal Sharma, DCIT,
Flat No. 90, Kargil Apartments, Circle-26 (1),
Sector-18, Dwarka, N. Delhi. V. New Delhi.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN /GIR/No.AWWPS
/GIR/No.AWWPS-
AWWPS-1200-
1200-J
Appellant by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate.
Respondent by : Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR.
ORDER
PER TS KAPOOR, AM:
This is a bunch of seven appeals filed by the assessee against separate CIT(A)'s order all dated 24.10.2011 relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10. All impugned orders were passed against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 153A/u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds of appeals taken by the assessee in the seven appeals are as under:-
Assessment year 2003-04:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the 2 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.23,38,396/- on wrong and infirm interpretation of facts.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing.
Assessment year : 2004- 2004-05:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity.
3. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing.
Assessment year : 2005- 2005-06:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant.
3 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.1,63,720/- on account of low household expenses.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing.
Assessment year : 2006- 2006-07:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.1,63,720/- on account of low household expenses.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing.
Assessment year : 2007- 2007-08:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant.
4 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.1,94,130/- on account of low household expenses.
4. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing.
Assessment year : 2008- 2008-09:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.1,94,130/- on account of low household expenses.
4. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.3,00,000/- on account of alleged business income on estimated basis.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing.
Assessment year : 2009- 2009-10:
5 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessee order u/s 153A /143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as none of the provisions of section 132(1)(a)(b) and (c ) are applicable in case of the appellant.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment completed in individual capacity.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.1,96,664/- on account of low household expenses.
4. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of `.3,06,000/- on account of alleged business income on estimated basis.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add/amend any ground(s) of appeal before and or at the time of hearing.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 21.7.2008 at the residence of the assessee at Flat No.90, Kargil Apartments, Sector-18, Dwarka, New Delhi. The search was in the name of the assessee and his wife Smt. Taruna Sharma. In view of the search notices under sub section(1)(a) of section 153A of the Act were issued to the assessee and he was asked to file return of income for seven assessment years including six assessment years relating to years preceding the year of search and one for the year in which search took place and in compliance the assessee filed returns of income declaring income of `.46,800/-, `.49,120/-, `.52,500/-, `.1,05,698/-, `.1,34,580/-, `.1,34,555/- and `.1,81,855/- respectively for 6 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 the above assessment years. During assessment proceedings for assessment year 2003-04 the Assessing Officer observed that assessee in the statement of affairs as on 31.3.2003 had declared assets amounting to `.23,38,396/- consisting of jewellery, investments, loans and advances, sundry deposits, cash and bank balances etc. The assessee was confronted to prove and substantiate the source of these investments and in reply the assessee submitted as under:-
"The assessee had kept her part of capital in the form of loans and advances, investment and jewellery etc. and part of the capital has been invested in the current assets alongwith some obligation shown in the current liabilities heads. The loans and advances has been made from and investments are belonging to financial year 1999-2000, books of accounts are not readily available to produce before your goodself due to time gap and paucity of time. In support of the statement of affairs as on 31.3.2002 showing the opening balance is submitted. The loans and advances are still outstanding till date in the books of assessee. Further would like to submit that as the assessee had kept the said investments for the long term purpose, hence merely earning the maximum income on this investment is not the sole purpose of the assessee, rather the safety is the main criteria for such investment."
3. The Assessing Officer, however, held that assessee did not provide any evidence with respect to dates and years in which the investments and advances were made by the assessee and therefore in the absence of any supporting evidence, the Assessing Officer treated the entire amount of `.23,38,396/- as his unexplained 7 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and made addition thereof.
4. The Assessing Officer further observed from the photo copy of a diary maintained by the assessee that for the period 1.11.2007 to 19.7.2008 the assessee had shown net income at the end of each month out of which the income was shown to have been distributed among three persons namely Shri Jagdish, Shri Bhuwan and the assessee and therefore the assessee was asked vide letter dated 13.12.2010 to explain as to why the income from the said firm should not be estimated on the basis of income distributed in each month in which the income varied from `.23,600/- to `.1,12,700/- for the period November, 2007 to June, 2008. The assessee in reply submitted that he was proprietor of the firm M/s Ganesh Documents and payment to other two persons was made with the understanding to procure work through them. The Assessing Officer estimated the average income for the period from November 2007 to July 2008 @ `.85,000/- per month and arrived at an annual figure of `.10,20,000/-. Out of which he attributed as income of the assessee to the extent of `.3,06,000/-. Therefore, considering the income in the year 2008-09 he calculated the income of the assessee for the assessment year under consideration at `.2,40,000/- and therefore made an addition thereof.
5. In assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer's again estimated the income at `.2,40,000/- on the same basis as in assessment year 2003-04 and made addition thereof. Further addition of `.4,20,000/- was made in this assessment year on account of the fact that assessee had made an investment in plot for a consideration of `.4,20,000/- which was sold for `.5,60,000/- in the year 2005. The assessee was asked to explain the source of investments of 8 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 `.4,20,000/- which he could not explain and therefore the Assessing Officer made the addition.
6. During assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer estimated the business income at `.3,00,000/- and also made an addition of `.1,63,720/- on account of low household drawings. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee had declared household drawings of `.16,280/- only whereas looking at the status of assessee and investment in various companies it was estimated to be at `.1,80,000/- and therefore the difference was added to the income of assessee. The Assessing Officer had further observed that assessee had sold some property which was purchased by him in the year 2003 therefore in the absence of any explanation a short term capital gain of `.1,40,000/- was added to the income of assessee.
7. In assessment year 2006-07, the Assessing Officer made an addition of `.1,63,720/.- on account of low household drawings and `.3,00,000/- on account of business income earned by him.
8. In assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer estimated the house withdrawals of `.2,16,000/- and made an addition of `.,1,94,130/- on account of difference between estimated household expenses and declared household drawings. Similarly, an addition of `.3,00,000/- was made on account of estimated business income.
9. In assessment year 2008-09, similar addition of `.1,91,250/- was made on account of low household drawings and `.3,00,000/- on account of estimated business income.
9 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
10. In assessment year 2009-10, the addition on account of low household drawings was made at `.1,96,664/- whereas the business income was estimated at `.3,06,000/-.
11. Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed appeals before Ld CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) upheld the addition of `.23,38,396/- in assessment year 2003-04 on account of failure of the assessee to prove the veracity of statement of affairs as on 31.3.2003. However, with respect to other additions of `.2,40,000/- on account of estimation of business income, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the addition and restricted the business income to `.46,800/- as declared by assessee in pursuance of notice u/s 153A.
12. In the year 2004-05, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the estimation of business income of `.2,40,000/- and accepted the business income declared at `.49,120/-. Further he deleted the addition of `.4,20,000/- which was made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in the plot.
13. As regards assessment year 2005-06, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the estimation of business income oat `.3,00,000/- and accepted the business income of `.52,500/- as declared by assessee in his return of income. Further addition on account of short term capital gain of `.1,40,000/- on account of sale of plot was sustained.
14. In assessment year 2006-07 the Ld CIT(A) again deleted the estimated business income of `.3,00,000/- and accepted the business income of `.1,05,698/- as declared by assessee. However, he sustained the addition of `.1,63,720/- which was made by the Assessing Officer on account of low household drawings.
10 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
15. In assessment year 2007-08, the Ld CIT(A) again deleted the estimated business income of `.3,00,000/- and accepted by the business income of `.1,34,580/- as declared by assessee However, the addition of `.1,94,130/- was upheld.
16. In assessment year 2008-09, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the addition on account of estimated income from business amounting to `.3,00,000/- against `.1,345,555/- as declared by assessee and similarly upheld the addition on account of low household drawings amounting to `.1,91,250/-.
17. In assessment year 2009-10, the Ld CIT(A) upheld the estimation of business income at `.3,06,000/- against `.1,81,855/- as declared by the assessee and also upheld the addition of `.1,96,664/- which was made on account of low household drawings.
18. Aggrieved with the order of Ld CIT(A) in respect of all years, the assessee has preferred appeals before this Tribunal.
19. At the outset, the Ld AR submitted that appeal for the assessment year 2004-05 is not being pressed and further submitted that in assessment year 2005-06, 2006-0-7 and 2007-08 there is grievance of the assessee against the common issue of estimated addition on account of lower withdrawal for household expenses and in assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 besides the grievance of the assessee on account of addition on account of lower household expenses, the assessee was further aggrieved with the estimation of business income in these two years. Commenting upon assessment in assessment year 2003-04, he argued that the Assessing Officer had 11 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 made the addition on account of assets as appearing in the statement of affairs as on 31.3.2003 which was not justified in view of the fact that the entire assets cannot be said to have been acquired in a single year.
20. Further arguing for assessment year 2003-04 the Ld AR submitted that Ld CIT(A)'s action on confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of addition of all assets was not justified as all assets were purchased by the assessee in earlier years. In this respect our attention was invited to paper book page 102 & 103 wherein copy of letter written by Ld AR of assessee to Assessing Officer was placed in which the Ld AR had submitted that investments were belonging to earlier years.. Our attention was also invited to paper book page 104 wherein the statement of affairs as on 31.3.2002 was placed and further we were taken to paper book page 4 where a statement of affairs as on 31.3.2003 was placed. Our attention was invited to jewellery and investment and loans and advances account as appearing at the same figure as on 31.3.2002 & 31.3.2003 and in view of the above it was argued that the assets belonged to earlier years instead of assessment year under consideration. In support of his argument our attention was invited to paper book page 5 & 6 where copies of bills of jewllery dated 19.8.2001 and 27.5.2001 was placed and similarly our attention was invited to paper book pages 7 to 23 wherein the detail of investment along with confirmation from persons with whom investments were made was placed. We were also taken to pages 24 to 48 wherein detail of loans and advances as on 31.3.2003 along with confirmation from persons to whom these were made was placed. Similarly we were taken to page 112 onwards wherein the break up of loans and advances as on 31.3.2000 along with their confirmation was placed. Our attention was also invited to paper book 12 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 pages 173 to 176 wherein copy of remand report was placed and further to page 177 to 178 where a reply to remand report was placed. In view of the reply to remand report, the Ld AR submitted that the findings of Assessing Officer in his remand report that it was difficult to verify the correctness of claims of assessee were not correct as all material was already filed with Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.
21. Regarding addition on account of household withdrawals the Ld AR argued that the Assessing Officer had made the addition on account of low household drawings in a mechanical manner which is apparent from the identical wording of assessment order in these years. The Ld AR relied upon the following case laws:-
1. Raj Kumar Jain v. ACIT 50 ITD 1 (TM) (Kol.)
2. Shyam Lata Kaushikj v. ACIT 114 TTJ 940 (Del.).
3. Bajrang Lal Bansal v. DCIT 94 TTJ 107.
22. He further submitted that during search operation no incriminating material was found and therefore additions in the years where assessments were completed cannot be made. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following case laws:-
1. 137 ITD 287 (Mum.) (SB) in the case of Alcargo Global Logistic (P) Ltd.
2. 28 Taxmann 328 In the case of Gurinder Singh Bawa v. DCIT (Bom.).
3. 28 Taxmann 246 In the case of Pratibha Industries Ltd.
13 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
23. Arguing for assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, the Ld AR submitted that in both the years, the addition on account of low household expenses was made as well as addition on account of estimation of business income was made whereas the assessee should have been given benefit of telescoping as both additions cannot be made simultaneously. Reliance in this respect was placed in the following case laws:-
1. 100 ITD 301 (Indore) In the case of Eagle Biotech Ltd. v. ACIT
1. 52 TTJ 21 (Del.). In the case of Ram Lubhiya v. ACIT
2. 149 ITR 127 (Mad.). in the case of CIT v. KSM Guruswamy Nadar & Sons.
24. The Ld DR, on the other hand, submitted that for assessment year 2003-04 onus was on the assessee to prove statement of affairs as on 31.3.2002 and in this respect he read from para 4.7 of Ld CIT(A)'s order and argued that statement of affairs submitted before ld CIT(A) was also not supported by evidences in respect of investments as assessee had not filed returns for earlier years and further books of accounts for earlier years were not provided to Assessing Officer or Ld CIT(A). Therefore, he argued that in the absence of explanation of source of investments in earlier years the addition on account of unexplained investments was justified. Regarding addition on account of low household withdrawals the Ld DR submitted that withdrawals were too low and therefore on the basis of surrounding circumstances Ld Assessing Officer estimated the household expenses approximately and further argued that for making addition there is no requirement of incriminating material u/s 153A and reliance in support of his arguments was placed on the following case laws:-
1. Mital Ice & Cold Storage v. CIT 25 Taxmann 1.
14 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
2. Shivnath Rai Harnarain (India) Ltd., v. DCIT (New Delhi) 117 ITD
74.
25. Regarding telescoping the Ld DR submitted that income was estimated on the basis of a diary found during search and Ld AR had not taken any plea or ground before Ld CIT(A) for telescoping and before Hon'ble ITAT also no such ground has been taken and therefore the plea of the Ld AR for telescoping has to be rejected or in the alternative the same may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer.
26. In his rejoinder, the Ld AR submitted that assessee was a deed writer and was not required to maintain books of accounts and therefore the contention of Ld DR that books of accounts were not produced does not hold any force.
27. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the material available on record. We find that the first two grounds of appeal in all the seven years are similar on which the Ld AR had not submitted any argument. Therefore, the first two grounds in all appeals are dismissed as not pressed. The Ld AR also did not press appeal for assessment year 2004-05 and hence the same is dismissed. Ground No.3 in assessment year 2003-04 is against sustaining of addition of `.23,38,396/- u/s 69 of the Act. We find that this addition was made by Assessing Officer and was further confirmed by Ld CIT(A) because the assessee did not submit evidence of his income or sources for purchasing the assets in different years. The Ld AR had drawn our attention to various documents/confirmations in support of claim of the assessee that these were acquired in earlier years. The Ld CIT(A) had observed that the assessee had failed to prove the sources of investment of `.23,38,396/-, therefore, a further 15 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 opportunity was given to assessee to explain his case. The Assessing Officer during remand proceedings again vide letter dated 29.9.2011 asked the assessee to furnish details relating to return of income of assessee for assessment year 1999-2000 to assessment year 2002-03 along with copy of bank account and all supporting documents to prove the correctness of investment. In reply, the Ld AR through letter dated 10.10.2011 had submitted that he had not filed return of income for the above assessment years and further copy of bank accounts was not available due to long time gap. The Ld AR of the assessee during remand proceedings was again directed to file gift deed if any from father of assessee and bank statements and income tax returns for the earlier years which the assessee did not reply. In reply to remand report, the Ld AR submitted that all queries made by the Assessing Officer and replies given by the assessee were already on the file of the Assessing Officer as these replies were given by the appellant during assessment proceedings itself and therefore it was submitted that the Assessing Officer's finding that it was difficult to verify the capacity and genuineness of transaction should not be accepted as the Assessing Officer was not able to find anything wrong or missing from third party evidence. From the facts and circumstances of the entire case, we find that the assessee had tried to explain the investment in earlier years in the form of confirmations/evidences from third parties which the Assessing Officer did not consider as assessee was not able to explain the source of these investments. The Assessing Officer without going through the third party evidences filed by the assessee continued to direct assessee to file proofs of income tax returns of earlier years in support of his acquiring assets ion earlier years and made additions because of non compliance which is not justified specially in view of the fact that he did not find any defect in the documents filed by the assessee. In view of the above, we set aside 16 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 the case to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication who on the basis of any enquiries from third parties in respect of their confirmations may arrive at the conclusion of addition if any u/s 69 of the Act. Needless to say that necessary opportunity will be given to assessee of being heard.
28. As regards assessment year 2005-06 to 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 the only common issue is with respect to addition on account of lower household drawings. The Ld AR has argued that addition on account of lower household drawings cannot be made u/s 153A of the Act in view of the fact that no incriminating document was seized during search proceedings. The Ld AR had relied upon various case laws in support of his claim that where during search proceedings no incriminating document is recovered, addition cannot be made in the years of which assessment was completed. We find from the submissions of assessee before Ld CIT(A) for assessment year 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 placed at paper book page 179, 196, 213 & 231 that assessee had not filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Act in these years and had filed returns of income only in response of notice u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the question of completed assessment in respect of these years does not arise at all as the assessee had not filed any return of income u/s 139 and therefore the case laws relied upon by the Ld AR do not apply to the facts and circumstances of these cases as in those cases the returns were filed u/s 139 of the Act. The return for assessment year 2003-04 was also not filed u/s 139 as is apparent from paper book page 179. Similarly returns for assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10 were also not filed u/s
139. 17 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012
29. Regarding merits of the cases regarding addition on account of lower household drawings, we feel that there is no other yard stick to measure household expenses of a person other than on the basis of facts and circumstances of that person with respect to size of the family, school going children, assets owned by that person and other surrounding circumstances. The Assessing Officer has estimated the household expenses of `.15,000/- p.m. in assessment year 2005-06 & 2006-07 and `.18,000/- p.m. in assessment year 2007-08 & 2008-09 and further `.20,000/- p.m. in assessment year 2009-10 which have been estimated on a very reasonable basis keeping in view the fact that assessee had two school going children and had reasonable investments in assets. The case law of Raj Kumar Jain v. ACIT 50 ITD1 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases as in that case, the figure of household expenses of assessee for earlier years were available with the Department and Department had accepted that figure in earlier years therefore it was held in that case that household expenses without any material could not be estimated without considering household expenses in earlier years. In the other case law of Shri G.S. Bhatia 59 TTJ 91 relied upon by Ld AR the conclusion was that unless and until it is established with evidence that it was only the assessee who had incurred all the household expenses, revenue was not justified in invoking the deeming provision of section 69A and whereas in the present case, Ld AR did not bring to our notice any drawings made by wife of assessee for contribution to household expenses. Therefore the case laws relied upon by Ld AR do not hold force as the facts and circumstances of the present cases are distinguishable. Therefore, in view of our findings, we uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld CIT(A) in respect of lower household drawings. In view of the above ground No.3 18 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 in respect of assessment year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 are dismissed.
30. As regards the argument of Ld AR regarding benefit of telescoping to be given to assessee in assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10, we find that Assessing Officer has estimated business income as well as the household expenses in these two years. The assessee had not contested on the ground of benefit of telescoping before Ld CIT(A) nor any ground has been taken before us but we still feel that on the basis of equity the assessee deserves to be given benefit of telescoping as the undeclared estimated business income can always be said to have been used for meeting undeclared household expenses. Provided the assessee had not invested such income or part of such income in some new assets. In the present cases assessee has not filed statement of assets as on 31.3.2007, 31.3.2008 & 31.3.2009, therefore, we are unable to arrive at a conclusion as to whether any part of estimated business income besides used for undeclared household drawings was used for creating further assets. Therefore, we set aside this issue to the office of Assessing Officer for re- adjudication who on the basis of further information from assessee and on the basis of statement of assets as on 31.3.2007, 31.3.2008 & 31.3.2009 can arrive at the amount of benefit of telescoping to be given to the assessee if any on the basis of increase in net assets viz-a- viz estimated business income and household drawings in these years. In view of the above ground No.4 in appeals relating to assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 are allowed for statistical purposes.
31. In view of the above, appeal for assessment year 2003-004 is partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas appeals for assessment year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08 are dismissed. Appeal for 19 ITA No120 TO 126/Del/2012 assessment year 2008-09 & 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
32. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th day of November, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV ) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dt. 12.11.2013. HMS Copy forwarded to:- 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi. True copy.
By Order (ITAT, New Delhi).
Date of hearing 23.10.2013 Date of Dictation 6.11.2013 Date of Typing 6.11.2013 Date of order signed by both the Members & pronouncement. Date of order uploaded on net & sent to the Bench concerned.