9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case, reasons advanced by the AO are quite general in nature. In fact, the first reason relating to the household articles pointed out, does not turn much on the subject because such articles are a normal occurrence in urban household. There is no allegation by the AO, much less a finding, that the lifestyle or the expenditure on the gadgets was ostentatiously lavish. Secondly, even estimation of household expenses admitted by the lady member of the family, can at best, be a yardstick to consider the acceptability of the expenses incurred by the assessee in the AY in question. Considering the amount admitted by the lady member of the family in the year 2003 and also household goods referred to by the AO, in the years under considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment under s. 153A r/w s. 143(3) of the Act has been finalized by the AO vide order dt. 31st March, 2006 for the three captioned assessment years. In the asst. yr. 1998-99, the assessee had explained that the household expenses are met from self-contributions, contributions from his brother, i.e., the other appellant before us, and from Shri Gaurav Duggal, another family member. On this basis, the assessee explained that the total expenditure incurred on household expenses was ₹ 1,25,000 for the asst. yr. 1998-99. The AO referred to the standard of living of the assessee and observed that various household articles like ACs, TVs, geysers etc. were found at the time of search. Further, statement of some lady family members was also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the search was conducted i.e., 15th Oct., 2003. However, such estimate would not hold good for the impugned assessment years which were of much earlier date. In any case, it was pointed out that even in the course of search operation, only normally accepted gadgets were found and there was nothing lavish noted by the search party. It was, therefore, contended that the household expenses, as returned by the assessee, be accepted. The CIT(A) has rejected the plea of the assessee on the ground that the estimation made by the AO was fair and reasonable. Not being satisfied with the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Before us, the learned counsel for assessee has reiterated the submissions made before the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has taken place. Admittedly, in the case of the assessee, search operation took place on 15th Oct., 2003. In any case, we find that before the claim of household expenses made by the assessee is to be rejected, the AO must bring out cogent material and evidence. In this case, reasons advanced by the AO are quite general in nature. In fact, the first reason relating to the household articles pointed out, does not turn much on the subject because such articles are a normal occurrence in urban household. There is no allegation by the AO, much less a finding, that the lifestyle or the expenditure on the gadgets was ostentatiously lavish. Secondly, even estimation of household expenses admitted by the lady member of the family on 15th Oct., 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
