Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE Before Shri D.T. Garasia, JM & Shri O.P. Meena, AM IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 A.Ys.2006-07 to 2010-11 Shailesh Mehta Indore PAN ACRPM 6516A Appellant Vs ACIT 2(1) Indore Respondent IT(SS)A Nos. 19 to 21/Ind/2015 A.Ys.2008-09 to 2010-11 Smt. Archana Mehta Indore PAN ACRPM 6515D Appellant Vs ACIT 2(1) Indore Respondent IT(SS)A Nos. 7 to 12/Ind/2015 A.Ys.2006-07 to 2010-11 Smt. Bharti Mehta Indore PAN AENPM 6160N Appellant Vs ACIT 2(1) Indore Respondent 1 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others Appellants by Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Shri Devendra Bansal Respondent by Shri Rajeev Varshney Date of hearing 23.8.2016 Date of pronouncement 22.9.2016 ORDER PER SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM These appeals have been filed by different assessees for assessment years mentioned above against orders of learned CIT(A)-I, Indore, all dated 22.9.2014. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, they are being disposed of by this consolidated order for sake of convenience. 2. Since facts of all these cases are similar with each, we would like to discuss facts obtaining in IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and decision arrived at in these appeals, shall govern all other appeals. 2 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others 3. facts, in brief, are that assessee has earned income from trading in MCX of Rs.3,09,562/-, Rs.3,60,139/-, Rs.3,56,976/-, Rs.3,79,341/- and Rs.4,50,571/- and income from other sources of Rs.5,161/-, Rs.12.50/-, Rs.24,414/- and Rs.13,997/-, (Salary) Rs.1,00,000/- & Rs.1,44,000/-. assessee has not maintained books of accounts with respect to business or profession carried on by her as required u/s 44AA(2) of IT Act. Since income from business or profession exceeds one lakh twenty thousand rupees therefore penalty proceedings u/s 271A are initiated separately for non maintenance of books of accounts. 4. During year assessee has debited Rs.50,996/-, Rs.42,102/-, Rs.51,766/-, Rs.93,820/- and Rs.97,231/- as household expenses. total income of assessee for reference year is Rs.2,49,198/- and Rs.2,70,175/- whereas during F.Y. 2005-06 withdrawal on household were 3 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others shown at Rs.50,004/-, Rs.52,004/- and Rs.52,004/- for life insurance premium and Tuition fees of Rs.25,500/-, Rs.33,600/-, Rs.43,699/-, Rs.49,910/- and Rs.55,500/- for one child. Total of these two is much more than expenditure shown on account of household articles. 5. assessee was asked to furnish details of members of his family, their occupation, PAN annual income and withdrawal by them for household expenses. assessee was also required to justify withdrawals for household expenses keeping in view size of family. In response assessee furnished chart explaining detail of household expenses but without any documentary evidence. On perusal of same it was observed thatg expenditure on household has decreased/increased from Rs.2,57,646/- of F.Y. 2004-05 to Rs.1,83,740/-, Rs.1,77,376/-, Rs.2,36,850/-, Rs.3,39,778/- and Rs.3,43,855/- in F.Y.2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 4 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others and F.Y. 2009-10 which is not at all possible looking to inflation, high standard of living and social status of family of assessee. assessee could not furnish any justification for such decrease in household expenses, therefore, estimated amount of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.1,25,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- is considered as incurred towards household expenses by assessee. Since assessee could not offer any satisfactory explanation, therefore, difference of Rs.24,004/-, Rs.57,898/-, Rs.73,234/-, Rs.56,180/- and Rs.77,769/- is added to income of assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before learned CIT(A) but in vein. Now assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. 7. Before us, learned counsel for assessee submitted that there was search in assessee group on 25.11.2010 at residential premises of brother of 5 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others assessee and also in respect of one bank locker bearing no. 383 maintained by assessee with State Bank of India, Patrakar Colony, Indore. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of Act was issued and in pursuance to notice, assessee was directed to furnish return and assessee has declared income which was filed in original return of income. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 24,004/- in assessment year 2006-07, Rs. 57,898/- in assessment year 2007-08, Rs. 73,234/- in assessment year 2008-09, Rs. 56,180/- in assessment year 2009-10 and Rs. 77,769/- in assessment year 2010-11 on account of low household expenses. learned counsel for assessee submitted that during course of search not single document was found on account of alleged low withdrawal by assessee in all assessment years, under consideration. learned counsel for assessee submitted that 6 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others assessment proceedings have been completed and addition is not based on any incriminating material and documents found during course of search. assessment is made entirely on basis of information and details provided by assessee himself. During course of assessment proceedings, no incriminating material or other documents were collected. learned counsel for assessee submitted that family of assessee consists of himself, his wife, Smt. Bharti Mehta, two children, his brother Chitresh, sister-in-law, Smt. Kalpana Mehta and two minor children of brother. It was also submitted that all members referred to above are members of HUF residing under common roof and with common kitchen in residential house situated at E-17, Saket Nagar, Indore. Smt. Bharti Mehta, Chitresh Mehta and Archana Mehta have independent source of income. Moreover, Chitresh Mehta is Karta and also having 7 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others independent income and they are assessed to tax. Therefore, assessee had already shown household expenses aggregating to Rs.1,77,376/-, Rs. 2,36,850/-, Rs.3,39,778/- and Rs. 3,43,855/- and 5,12,928/- for assessment years under consideration. Therefore, as per decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 taxman. 412 (Del), no addition can be made in assessment years under consideration. 8. On other hand, learned DR relied upon orders of authorities below. 9. We have gone through orders of authorities below, submissions of parties and documents placed on record. We find that assessee is residing in 8 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others joint family under common roof and kitchen. All other members residing therein have also contributed to household expenses. assessee has also shown adequate withdrawals from bank. Therefore, in wake of these facts as also following decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2015) 61 taxman. 412 (Del), in ITA Nos. 13 to 16/Ind/2015, ITA Nos. 19 and 20/Ind/2015, ITA Nos. 7 to 10/Ind/2015 orders of authorities below are set aside and this ground of appeals is allowed whereas in ITA No. 17/Ind/2015, ITA No. 21/Ind/2015, ITA Nos. 11 and 12/Ind/2015, in our opinion, it would be reasonable to restrict addition to 50%. We order accordingly. 10. In result, in ITA Nos. 13 to 16/Ind/2015, ITA Nos. 19 and 20/Ind/2015 and ITA Nos. 7 to 10/Ind/2015 are allowed whereas ITA No. 17/Ind/2015, ITA No. 9 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others 21/Ind/2015, ITA Nos. 11 and 12/Ind/2015 are partly allowed. Pronounced in open Court on 22 September, 2016 Sd/- sd/- (O.P. MEENA) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 22 September, 2016 Dn/- 10 Shailesh Mehta & Others IT(SS) Nos. 13 to 17/Ind/2015 and others 11 Shailesh Mehta v. ACIT 2(1), Indore