1997 PLP (Trib (PTD)

were still inadequate. The .T.O. estimated the same as 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Rs.1,32,000 Rs.1,44,000 Rs.1,56,000

3. On the basis of the above estimate additions under section 13(1)(e) were made as under:

1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Rs.32,701 Rs.55,500 Rs.38,598

4. Appeals were preferred against the same where the first appellate authority, while agreeing in principle that the declared household expenses were under-stated but considering the social status and standard of living reduced the additions as; 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 Rs.15,000 Rs.30,000 Rs.20,000

5. The learned A.R. arguing on behalf of the appellant, not only repeated the arguments made before the authorities below but also emphasised that in the additions worked out by the lower authorities there was no basis, rationale or material. It was explained that the expenses claimed on account of running of kitchen at Rs.40,000 each for the first two years and Rs.45,000 for the third year were more than reasonable in case of family consisting of two members only (assessee and wife). The I.T.O., according to the A.R., has not brought an iota of material to dislodge the appellant's submissions that the declared expenses are inadequate and the replaced, estimates have any basis or substance. Further, the CIT(A) has acted without any material or criteria in support of his estimates. It was pleaded by the A.R. that all these appear to be shots in the dark. Considering the years to which the expenses pertain it was pleaded- that these were more than reasonable and as such should have been accepted.

6. The learned D.R. supported the findings as reflected in the impugned order and maintained that in case of director of a limited company where the standard of living demands higher expenses the declared were insufficient. It was pleaded that the CIT(A) has already granted considerable relief and, therefore, this order should be maintained.

7. The arguments advanced before me have been considered and examined. What is "social status and standard of living" has not been either elaborated or quantified in monetary terms. If the assessing officer felt that the declared expenses were not commensurate with the standard of living then he should have supported the same with some evidence, proof or basis. There is none on record. Even the notice issued under section 13(1)(e) show that the I.T.O. has concluded that the declared expenses are too low, without any sufficient supporting material. In fact he has made entries in blank columns with his proposed estimates..

8. I do not find this approach rationale. It may be that the assessee's expenditure on account of household expenses be more than these declared by it but what is estimated has to have some basis and supported by necessary evidence or material. This has not been done. At the same time in the case of husband and wife for the years under review where they were residing in their own house, I feel that the declared kitchen expenses at Rs.40,000 for the two years and Rs.45,000 for the third year are reasonable. The additions made by the I. T.O. and further reduced by the CIT(A) have no basis. The Revenue has not been able to make out a case. The appellant's point of view is upheld. Resultantly, the additions made under section 13(1)(e) are directed to be deleted and the declared results stand accepted.

9. The three appeals stand disposed of to the manner and extent indicated above. C.M.S./378/Trib. Appeal disposed of.