9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue has referred to p 6 of the assessment order and contended that the assessee's standard of living was quite high as he was having various luxurious items like colour T.V., V.C.P., A.C., etc. as noted by AO. He has contended that in the circumstances, the AO rightly estimated the household expenses of assessee at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per month and so giving credit of the withdrawals rightly made the addition. He has contended that the reduction in the aforesaid addition by the learned Dy. CIT(A) is not proper. As against this, the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the assessee's family was small consisting of assessee, his wife and small daughter. He has contended that the assessee was living in the house belonging to his brother and so was not paying any rent. It has been contended that the assessee's household expenses were not more than Rs. 1,000 per month. It has also been contended that the assessee was not member of any club. He has contended that in view of the above facts the estimates of assessee's household expenses at Rs. 1,500 p.m. made by Dy. CIT(A) is quite reasonable. 6. We have considered the rival contentions as also material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to assessee's brother. It has been contended that the firm paid back the said deposit along with interest aggregating to Rs. 40,366 on 16th Oct., 1987, and the same was deposited in her bank a/c with Canara Bank on 17th Oct., 1987. It has been contended that she received a cash of Rs. 20,000 from Hargum Balani on 20th Oct., 1987, just before her marriage. It has been contended that it is out of these amounts that she deposited Rs. 60,000 with M/s Mahendra Oil Industries and earned interest thereon. It has been contended that relevant supportive evidence including her accounts with aforesaid three firms and her bank statement along with explanation of entries and assessment order for asst. yrs. 1980-81, 1983-84 have also been furnished. It has been contended that the assessment orders and copies of account show that the capital of Smt. Laxmi has been accumulated for a long period well before her marriage, which stands accepted by the Revenue in the past. It has been contended that AO has not pointed out any evidence to show the deposits in her bank a/c to have been the income of assessee. It has also been contended that all the particulars of the specific facts pertaining to Smt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow terms and conditions of agreement and that the assessee did not render services to the company. As against this the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the AO's elaborate order was passed in asst. yr. 1990-91 filed in I.T.A. No. 1113/Jp/94. He has contended that the AO made the disallowable for the reasons that the remuneration was paid only because of assessee's shareholding. He has contended that for asst. yr. 1990-91 that addition was deleted by learned Dy. CIT(A), vide para 2 of p. 3 of his appellate order. And no second appeal by the Department has been made on this ground in asst. yr. 1990-91. He has contended that in asst. yr. 1990-91 the assessee has explained elaborately to AO that the assessee-director has been rendering such and such services to the company. He has contended that the assessee was a full-time director and rendering full services for the purpose of the business to the company. He has contended that the assessee was looking after the purchases, production, sales and day-to-day administration of the company. He has contended that the assessee was paid salary for his full-time services for the purpose of business to the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid remuneration for the services the assessee was rendering to the company. In that view of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the remuneration received by assessee falls within the category of salary for the reason of the assessee being an employee/servant of company. That being the situation the assessee is found to be entitled to deduction under s. 16(i) of the Act. As such the impugned order of learned CIT(A) in allowing standard deduction under s. 16(i) to the assessee out of the remuneration salary is quite justified and suffers from no infirmity. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the learned CIT(A)'s impugned order on this count. 13. Ground No. 2 disputes the deleting of addition of Rs. 60,346 made on account of unexplained cash credit in the name of assessee's wife Smt. Laxmi, and of Rs. 2,600 being interest thereon. This ground is covered by our conclusion/decisions rendered above on ground No. 2 in asst. yr. 1990-91 in ITA No. 1113/Jp/94, where we have elaborately discussed the relevant facts together with the rival contentions and have held the deposits to be belonging to Smt. Laxmi and not to assessee due to therebeing no evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee to be quite proper and suffering from no infirmity. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 17. Ground No. 3 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 13,000 made by AO on account of low household expenses. Both the sides have relied on their same arguments as raised on similar issue being ground No. 1 in ITA No. 1113/Jp/94 for asst. yr. 1990-91. The facts remaining identical, we follow our decision rendered above on ground No. 2 for asst. yr. 1990-91 wherein we have upheld the learned Dy. CIT(A)'s impugned order in estimating the assessee's household expenditure at Rs. 15,000 p.m. and thereby deleting the addition made by AO taking household expenditure of assessee at Rs. 3,000 p.m. Accordingly, we find no fault with the impugned order of learned Dy. CIT(A) in estimating the assessee's household expenditure for asst. yr. 1989-90 at Rs. 1,250 p.m. and in turn, deleting the addition of Rs. 13,000 made by AO by estimating the household expenditure at Rs. 30,000 for the year under consideration. As such, the impugned order of learned Dy. CIT(A) being quite justified on this count, so we decline to interfere with the same. 18. Ground No. 4 disputes the deletion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed this issue on p. 8 and has drawn his conclusion on p. 9 of his appellate order. The learned Dy. CIT(A) has observed that considering assessee's cash withdrawals of Rs. 20,000 after allowing for household expenses and for donation under s. 80C, there still remains balance of Rs. 17,000 which can account for this deposit. He also observed that the pass book itself shows these deposits by transfer and that unless the source from where the transfer took place is doubted, the deposit by way of transfer cannot be treated as unexplained. As such, in our opinion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the deletion made by learned Dy. CIT(A) suffers from no fault and is quite justified. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 22. Ground No. 6 disputes the learned Dy. CIT(A)'s order in directing the AO to allow short-term capital loss of Rs. 15,841 in the year under appeal. The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has referred to p. 6 of AO's order and p. 9 of Dy. CIT(A)'s order regarding this issue and has relied on the findings of AO. As against this, the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the AO made this addition hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A)'s order in directing the AO to allow standard deduction of Rs. 12,000 under s. 16(i). This ground is common with the similar ground No. 1 in asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1988-89. The facts being common, the ground is covered by our decision referred to above in similar ground in asst. yrs. 1989-90 and 1988-89. We, therefore, follow our decision rendered above on similar ground and accordingly find no fault with the learned Dy. CIT(A)'s direction in allowing standard deduction under s. 16(i) out of assessee's salary/remuneration from the company. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 27. Ground No. 2 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 15,360 on account of interest income in the name of assessee's wife Smt. Laxmi Chhugani. This ground is also covered by our decision rendered above on similar issue contained in ground No. 2 in asst. yr. 1989-90, ground No. 2 in asst. yr. 1988-89 and ground No. 2 asst. yr. 1990-91. The facts, being identical, we follow our decision rendered above on the similar ground in asst. yrs. 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91 and accordingly the assessee's wife Smt. Laxmi Chhugani being an independent assessee, her income is held to be not includible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
