9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any kind of household withdrawals specially, on the facts stated that sums was shown by his mother and himself for the household expenses – Decided in favour of Assessee. Unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act - Credits in bank account of other persons – Held that:- Following Sandeep Tatode Versus DCIT, Cen. Cir 39, Mumbai [2014 (7) TMI 123 - ITAT MUMBAI] - the assessee made a specific request that enquiry can be done from the respective bank u/s 131 or 133(6) so as to look into the factum of ownership of the bank accounts - the authorities should have made an enquiry when the assessee has categorically denied the ownership of the bank account – u/s 292C onus is upon the assessee to prove that any asset or books of accounts etc. found fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /08/2012 passed in ITA No.2976/Mum/2012 for the assessment year 2003-04. The issue raised in the first ground pertains to addition made on account of low household expenses. For the year under consideration the family of the Assessee has shown total household expenses of ₹ 82,685/-. ₹ 50,000/- by the mother of the Assessee and ₹ 32,685/- by the Assessee himself. AO being of the view that the expenditure shown to have been incurred for household are on the lower side and added a sum of ₹ 2,70,000/- on account of low household expenses. The ld. CIT(A) has estimated the expenditure of the Assessee at ₹ 1,30,000/-. Assessee is aggrieved by sustained disallowance and has filed aforementioned grounds. Referring to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son to sustain any kind of addition on account of low household withdrawals as confirmed by the CIT(A) ₹ 1,00,000/-, therefore, the same is directed to be deleted. In the result, ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 2.1 Thus it was pleaded by the ld. Authorized Representative that the sustained addition should be deleted. 3. On the other hand the ld. DR relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard both the parties and the contentions have been carefully considered. Since facts and circumstances are similar, respectfully following the aforementioned order of co-ordinate Bench in the case of the Assessee himself, we delete the addition and Ground No.1 is allowed. 5. Apropos Ground No.2 it was sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3(6) so as to look into the factum of ownership of the said bank accounts. In our opinion, the authorities below should have made such, an enquiry when the assessee has categorically denied the ownership of the bank account. It is true that under Section 292C onus is upon the assessee to prove that any asset or books of accounts etc. found from the possession of the assessee, the presumption is raised against the assessee. However, the assessee has clearly stated that the bank officials have refused to divulge the information about the clients. In such circumstances, the Assessing Officer should have carried out the enquiry from the said banks. Therefore, in the interest of justice we feel that his issue should be restored back to the file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
