9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evance :- "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.38,000/- on account of low withdrawal for house hold expenses without assigning any reason." 3. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are like this. The assessee before us was subjected to search and seizure operation on 18.02.2009. During the course of subsequent assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that the assessee has shown withdrawal for household expenses at Rs.58,000/- which, in the opinion of the A.O., were very low considering the size of the assessee's family, his status and his standard of living. Accordingly, the A.O. estimated the household expenses at Rs.8,000/- per month which thus works out to Rs.96,000/- for the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.19,81,041/.- u/s. 69C on account of undisclosed expenditure/investment in house property being the difference between the value disclosed by the assessee and the estimation by the DVO without appreciating the fact that the addition was made after giving the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee." 8. So far as this grievance of the assessee is concerned, it is enough to take note of only a few facts. In the course of the assessment proceedings subsequent to search and seizure operation, it was noticed by the A.O. that the assessee had incurred expenses towards improvement and renovation in the residential property after its purchase. Whereas the assessee has shown the expenditure of Rs.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... calculation set out at page no.29 of his order, came to the conclusion that after assessee's objections are duly considered the difference between valuation as per valuer's report and as per expenses shown in assessee's books of account will be restricted to less than 15% which is within the permissible limits and accordingly no addition is warranted. The addition of Rs.19,81,041/- was, on this basis, deleted. The A.O. is not satisfied with the stand so taken by the ld. CIT(A) and is in appeal before us. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and having perused the material on record. During the course of hearing before us, ld. Departmental Representative mainly relied upon the extracts from the appraisal report which, accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen took us through the ld CIT(A)'s elaborate order and pointed out that even on merit the addition was unwarranted. He submitted that assessee's objections to the valuation were summarily brushed aside by the A.O. and that when the appropriate adjustments are made these objections between expenditure as per the valuation report and as per the assessee's books of account will be reduced to only minor difference which is permissible. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also laid emphasis on the facts that there was no material found during the search & seizure operation which establish or even suggest that there was suppression of expenses on renovation/construction etc. On the instance of these, further he urged us to uphold the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
