TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /Jdpr/98 being the Revenue s appeal for asst. yr. 1985-86. Ground No. 1 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 13,000 made by AO on account of separate professional receipts in the reassessment. The learned Departmental Representative of Revenue has contended that the assessee is a renowned advocate and that his household expenses must be much more than what the assessee has shown and, therefore, the AO had rightly estimated the assessee s professional income at enhanced figure as the enhanced part of assessee s professional receipts was required to meet the household expenses. He has contended that the addition of Rs. 13,000 on account of household expenses, by way of assessee s professional receipts has rightly been made. He has relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rial on record as also the cited decisions. From the perusal of record we find that there is no convincing evidence to establish that the assessee s professional receipts were much more than that shown by assessee or that the assessee was contributing towards or incurring much more household expenses than shown by the assessee. As such, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal position emanating from the cited decisions including the order dt. 27th Feb., 2002, in assessee s own case for asst. yrs. 1982-83, 1984-85 and 1986-87, there being no evidence to support the estimate of professional income made by AO nor to support the estimate of higher household expenses, we respectfully follow the decision of this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been considered. He has contended that the cash flow was worked out on estimate basis and so the addition has rightly been deleted by the Dy. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record, we find that after the original assessment made under s. 143(3), the AO has not brought on record any fresh/new material/evidence nor has he pointed out any specific instance of unexplained expenditure/investment so as to justify the addition. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the assessee s explanation as given in para 3 on p. 11 of PB, the assessee s letter dt. 8th Dec., 1993, and para 3 on p. 8 of PB, being assessee s letter dt. 27th March, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of estimate of advance tax by assessee. He has contended that the provision of s. 214 was amended w.e.f. 1st April, 1988, and the amended provision contained proviso which provided that any amount of advance tax paid before 31st March shall be treated as advance tax paid during the year. He has contended that accordingly any excess payment eligible for refund is eligible for interest under s. 214. He has cited Bakelite Hylam Ltd. vs. CIT (1993) 113 CTR (AP)(FB) 33 : (1993) 202 ITR 145 (AP)(FB) and CIT vs. Kohinoor Flour Mills (P) Ltd. (1991) 94 CTR (SC) 162 : (1991) 187 ITR 585 (SC), in his support. 11. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
