Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1004 (PNJ)

Budh Kishore v. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

2004-09-03

N.K.SUD, S.S.GREWAL

body2004
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), against the orders of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench "D", New Delhi (for short "the Tribunal"), dated September 23, 2003, and August 12, 2003, relating to the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal that the household expenses of the assessee to the extent of Rs. 96,400 and Rs. 84,000 for the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96, respectively, had remained unexplained and thereby upholding the addition to that extent in the total income of the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had not disclosed any withdrawals for household expenses and that the relevant columns in the net wealth statement had been left blank. Keeping in view the size of the family of the assessee and standard of living, he estimated the expenses of the family at Rs. 10,000 per month totalling Rs. 1,20,000 for the entire year. Since the assessee had not accounted for this amount, he treated the same as having been incurred out of undisclosed sources and thereby made an addition of Rs. 1,20,000 to the income of the assessee. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) contending that there was no basis, whatsoever, for estimating the household expenses at Rs. 1,20,000. It was pointed that the household expenses were being met by the wife of the assessee, who had withdrawn Rs. 33,600 out of her capital account for that purpose. It was claimed that in view of the fact that the assessee was residing in his own house and the family being pure vegetarian and teetotaller maintaining an ordinary standard of living, the said amount was sufficient to cover the household expenses. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted this claim and deleted the addition by observing that the same had been made on mere assumptions without there being any concrete evidence on record. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has upheld the estimate of the Assessing Officer determining the household expenses at Rs. 1,20,000 as reasonable in view of the size of the assessees family and his status. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has upheld the estimate of the Assessing Officer determining the household expenses at Rs. 1,20,000 as reasonable in view of the size of the assessees family and his status. However, keeping in view the amount of Rs. 33,600 withdrawn by the wife of the assessee, it restored the addition to the extent of Rs. 86,400 (1,20,000-33,600). The figure of Rs. 96,400 appears to be a typographical error as it actually works out to Rs. 86,400. 6. In the assessment year 1995-96, the facts are almost identical except that the assessee had taken the stand before the Assessing Officer himself that the household expenses had been met by his wife Meera Devi, who had withdrawn Rs. 36,000 out of her account for that purpose. The Assessing Officer had thus made the addition of Rs. 84,000 (1,20,000 - 36,000). 7. Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that there is no basis for the Tribunal to estimate the household expenses at Rs. 1,20,000. He claimed that in the case of some of the relatives of the assessee, the household expenses had been estimated at a lower figure. On a specific query from the Bench as to whether the assessee had furnished any break-up of his household expenses to justify the claim that the amount of Rs. 33,600 was sufficient to cover the expenses, he fairly conceded that no such break-up had been furnished by the assessee. He also expressed his inability to furnish any such details before us. 8. We have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the orders of the authorities below. In the absence of any break-up of the household expenses, it is not possible to verify as to whether the amounts of Rs. 33,600 and Rs. 36,000 withdrawn by the assessees wife in the two assessment years under consideration, were sufficient for this purpose. The matter has to be decided on the basis of the estimate. The Tribunal has estimated the expenses at Rs. 10,000 per month. Such a finding is essentially a question of fact. 33,600 and Rs. 36,000 withdrawn by the assessees wife in the two assessment years under consideration, were sufficient for this purpose. The matter has to be decided on the basis of the estimate. The Tribunal has estimated the expenses at Rs. 10,000 per month. Such a finding is essentially a question of fact. It is not open to this court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act, to substitute its own estimate for the estimate of the Tribunal, unless it is shown that the estimate of the Tribunal is arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. In the present appeals, no such case is made out especially in view of the fact that the assessee is not prepared to furnish any break-up of his household expenses. The reference to the cases of his relatives cannot be considered by us as no details have been furnished about the size of their families, their household expenses and other particulars in respect thereof. Even the amounts of the household expenses in such cases have not been mentioned. 9. In view of the above, we are satisfied that no substantial question of law arises out of the orders of the Tribunal. 10. There is a delay of 35 days in refiling the appeals for which applications for condonation of delay have been filed. Since we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeals, we do not deem it necessary to issue notice merely to consider the claim for condonation of delay. 11. Both the appeals are dismissed in limine.