ORDER
S.R. Chauhan, J.M.
As the above appeals are interrelated and involve common points, so we are disposing them off by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. ITA No. 437, 438/Jdpr/98, are appeals by revenue for assessment years 1985-86 and 1988-89, respectively and are directed against two separate orders of Additional Commissioner (Appeals)/Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), dated 27-3-1998 and 27-3-1998, respectively.
3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records including the w/s of learned authorised representative of assessee.
4. First we taken up ITA No. 437/Jdpr/98 being the revenue's appeal for assessment year 1985-86. Ground No. 1 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 13,000 made by assessing officer 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 assessing officer 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 assessees professional receipts has rightly been made. He has relied on the orders of assessing officer. As against this, the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the original assessment was made under section 143(3), and no fresh evidence thereafter has been brought by assessing officer on record. He has contended that the addition of Rs. 13,000 in the professional income has been made without any receipt, estimate and without any evidence to support the addition. He has contended that the assessing officer has not given any receipt, estimate and without any evidence to support the estimate. He has contended that the assessing officer has not given any basis for estimating higher amount of household expenses. He has contended that the assessing officer has not considered the fact of contribution towards household expenses by other members of the family. He has contended that the assessing officer has not enquired about the fees charged by assessee in respect of cases and also about the fact of cases dealt by assessee free of charge. He has also contended that the assessee is living in border area where majority of population is poor, the cases are of small nature and the level of fees. is very less. It has been contended that the assessee has been practising in lower court only. In the w/s of assessee several decisions including Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar AIR 1957 SC has been cited. Reliance has also been cited on the decision of this Bench in ITA Nos. 1448 to 1451/Jp/92 rendered on 27-2-2002, in assessee's own case (Asstt. CIT v. Laxmi Narain Mehta (2002) 75 TTJ (JP) 180-Ed. 1.
5. We have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material 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 dated 27-2-2002, in assessee's own case (supra) for assessment years 1982-83, 1984-85 and 1986-87, there being no evidence to support the estimate of professional income made by assessing officer nor to support the estimate of higher household expenses, we respectfully follow the decision of this Bench mentioned above and accordingly find this addition to be uncalled for and not justified. We, therefore, find no fault with the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the addition. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
6. Ground No. 2 disputes the deletion of addition of Rs. 20,890 on account of unexplained investment/expenditure. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has relied on the orders of assessing officer. As against this, the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) and that thereafter no new facts have been pointed out by the assessing officer for making this addition. He has contended that the assessing officer has not given any specific instance of unexplained expenditure/investment. He has contended that the assessing officer has worked out cash flow on estimate basis in March 1990, that is, after five years from the close of the relevant year. He has contended that the assessee is not maintaining books of account and record. He has contended that the assessing officer has not considered the deposit of Rs. 8,000 from Smt. Gulab Mehta, the wife of assessee who is an existing income-tax assessee having funds at the relevant time. He has contended that there is no basis for opening cash balance. He has contended that the fact of increase between returned income (Rs. 20,150) and original assessed income (Rs. 24,000) has not been considered. He has contended that the effect of addition on account of debenture interest of Rs. 1,940 has not 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 Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
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 section 143(3), the assessing officer 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 page 11 of paper book, the assessee's letter dated 8-12-1993, and para 3 on page 8 of paper book, being assessee's letter dated 27-3-1998, as also the learned authorised representative's detailed contention in the w/s on this count, we find the addition to be not justified and in turn, the deletion of addition by learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) to be quite proper. We, therefore, find no fault with the impugned order of learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) on this count, and so we decline to interfere with the same.
8. In the result, the revenue's appeal being ITA No. 437/Jdpr/98 is dismissed.
9. Now we take up revenue's appeal in ITA No. 438/Jdpr/98 being for assessment year 1988-89.
10. Ground No. 1 disputes the order of Additional Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer to allow interest under section 214 of the Act. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has contended that the assessee did not furnish estimate/statement of advance tax but he paid advance tax during the financial year. He has contended that the assessing officer had not allowed interest under section 214 in his assessment order and so the assessee moved rectification petition under section 154 seeking allowance of interest. The assessing officer rejected the assessee's petition under section 154 but the learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal directing the assessing officer to allow interest under section 214 which is not proper. He has relied on assessing officer's order. As against this, the learned authorised representative of assessee has contended that the assessee had filed estimate of advance tax and paid advance tax before 31-3-1988. He has referred to page 10 of paper book being assessing officer's order under section 154 wherein the assessing officer has admitted the filing of estimate of advance tax by assessee. He has contended that the provision of section 214 was amended with effect from 1-4-1988, 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 section 214. He has cited Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. CIT : [1993]202ITR145(AP) and CIT v. Kohinoor Flour Mills (P) Ltd. : [1991]187ITR585(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 case as also the legal position we find the action of the learned Addl. Commissioner (Appeals) in directing the assessing officer to allow interest under section 214 to be quite proper and justified. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
12. Ground No. 2 also relates to ground No. 1 pertaining to allowing of interest under section 214. This ground No. 2 agitates the issue on the reasoning that learned Additional Commissioner (Appeals) erred in entertaining assessee's plea under section 154 due to the issue being capable of two interpretations relying on : [1980]121ITR339(AP) , in the case of Kangudi Industiral Works (P) Ltd. v. ITO. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has relied on assessing officer's order. The learned authorised representative of assessee had relied on his w/s wherein it has been contended that 121 ITR 393 (supra) has been reversed by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. CIT (supra). Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal position, we find no merit in this ground of revenue and accordingly this ground fails.
13. Ground No. 3 is general.
14. In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed.