9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame amount could not be taxed as business receipts in the hands of the assessee thus, there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition on the issue – Decided against Revenue. Deletion made on account of low household expenses – Held that:- The CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee is living a simple life in village and did not have any car or membership of club and has shown withdrawal for family of five members in the accounting year 2004-2005, which were sufficient for meeting household expenses - there is no justification for making any addition on account of low household expenses – Decided against Revenue. Estimation of commission income – Held that:- The CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned speaking order on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th CO No.57/Ahd/2009, ITA No.291/Ahd/2009 With CO No.58/Ahd/2009 - - - Dated:- 7-2-2014 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Anil Chaturvedi,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri K. C. Mathews, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri S. B. Vaidya ORDER Per Bench: These appeals by the Revenue and COs. by the assessees for the assessment year 2005-06 are directed against the order of the CIT(A). Since identical issue is involved in these appeals, these are being disposed of with this consolidated order: ITA No.290/Ahd/2009 (Revenue's Appeal - Shri Devilal R. Gehlot) 2. The ground no.1 of this appeal of the Revenue is as under: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts in the hands of the assessee, and accordingly, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition on this issue, which is confirmed and the ground no.l of the Revenue is dismissed. 4. The ground no.2 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.42,550/- made by the AO on account of low household expenses." 5. The learned DR relied on the order of the AO and the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the CIT(A). We have considered rival submissions. We find that the CIT(A) has recorded that the assessee is living a simple life in village and did not have any car or member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, the same is confirmed and the ground no.1 of the CO of the assessee is dismissed. 8. The ground no.2 of the CO is as under: "2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.42,550/- made by the AO on account of low household expenses." 9. We have heard the parties. We find that the addition of Rs.42,550/- on account of low household expenses has been deleted by the CIT(A), and we have confirmed the order of the CIT(A) on this issue in the foregoing paras of this order in the Revenue's appeal in the case of Shri Devilal R. Gehlot. Accordingly, there is no merit in the ground no.2 of the CO of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the Revenue in the foregoing paras of this order in the case of Shri Devilal R. Gehlot, we hold that there is no merit in the ground no.2 of the Revenue which is accordingly dismissed. 14. The ground no.3 of the Revenue's appeal is as under: "3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment." 15. We have heard the parties. We find that the CIT(A) has recorded that no addition on this account is called for since the investment in trucks is duly reflected in the accounts of two ladies as also the income therefrom, and therefore, there is no justification in making the addition in the hands of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erred in confirming the AO's estimated commission income at Rs.11,00,000/- instead of Rs.8,51,727/- as shown by the assessee and making addition of Rs.3,26,309/-" 19. Both the parties submitted before us that the issue in this ground of the CO of the assessee is identical with the issue in the ground no.1 of the CO in the case of Shri Devilal R. Gehlot for the same assessment year 2005-06. We have considered rival submissions. For the reasons recorded while disposing of ground no.1 of the CO in the case of Shri Devilal R. Gehlot, in the foregoing paras of this order, we hold that there is no merit in the ground no.1 of the CO which is accordingly dismissed. 20. The ground no.2 of the CO of the assessee is as under: "2. On the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
