1. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 266/JU/2014
Assessment Year: 2009-10
Shri Virendra Singh Shekawat Vs. The Income-tax Officer
Ward No. 10, Anoopgarh. Suratgarh
PAN No. APNPS 3623 M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
ITA No. 352/JU/2014
Assessment Year: 2008-09
The Income-tax Officer Vs. Shri Virendra Singh Shekawat
Suratgarh Ward No. 10, Anoopgarh.
PAN No. APNPS 3623 M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Suresh Ojha
Department by : Shri Jai Singh, DR
Date of Hearing : 26.08.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2014

2. 2
ORDER
PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M.
The above captioned cross appeals - one by the revenue
and the other by the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 are directed
against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 12.3.2014 and are
being decided by this common order as, apart from the
assessee being the same in both the appeals, the issues
involved are also identical.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
assessee is a professional advocate, being Income-tax
Consultant and study Visa consultant practicing at Anoopgarh. During
the year, the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.
2,82,180/- apart from disclosing agricultural income of Rs. 3 lakhs, as
against which assessment was completed at total income of Rs.
24,25,728/- vide order dated 23.12.2011 made u/s 144 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961 ['the Act' for short]. The A.O added professional account
income of Rs. 2,51,043/- and similarly, in the account of visa
consultancy an amount of Rs. 3,05,670/-. Both these additions are
estimated ones. Further, a sum of Rs. 8,34,585/- has been added on

3. 3
account of unexplained deposits and Rs. 4,52,300/- has been added
u/s 68 of the Act. Further addition of Rs. 90,000/- has been made on
account of low house hold expenses. Aggrieved, the assessee filed
appeal and the ld. CIT(A) has deleted some of the additions and
therefore, both the parties are now in appeal before the Tribunal.
2.1 The Revenue has raised the following grounds:
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the, Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in :-
(i) deleting addition of Rs. 2,01,043/- made on account of
professional receipt.
(ii) deleting addition of Rs. 3,05,617/- made on account of
consultancy receipt.
(iii) deleting addition of Rs. 8,34,585/- made on account of
unexplained investment.
(Iv) deleting addition of Rs. 4,82,300/- made on account of
unexplained cash credit.
(v) deleting addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made on account of agriculture
expenditure.

4. 4
(vi) deleting addition of Rs. 1,65,000/- made on account of
professional receipt.”
2.2 The assessee has raised the following grounds:
“1. That the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) is
illegal and against the law in respect of sustaining the addition.
2. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) should not have
sustained a sum of Rs. 50000.00 under the head of professional
receipt in absence of any contrary evidence.
3. That the addition sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax
(A) Bikaner is arbitrary and against the law.
4. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) should not have
sustained a sum of Rs. 25000.00 under the head of house hold
expenses because the house hold expenses is quite reasonable
looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (A) should have followed
the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal referred before the him.
6. Without prejudice to above the addition of the Rs. 50000.00
sustained under the head professional receipt and Rs. 25000.00
sustained under the head house hold expenses is excessive and
high.
7. That the charging of interest is illegal and against the law.”

5. 5
3. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully
perused the relevant material on record. After considering
the rival submissions we are convinced that the deletions
made by the ld. CIT(A) and which are the subject matter of
the Revenue’s appeal are perfectly in order. We have found
that the assessment was made u/s 144 of the Act because the
assessee met with an accident and was hospitalized in
Kothari Hospital, which fact has not been denied by the
Revenue. Before the ld. CIT(A), written submissions was
filed which was sent to the A.O and after considering the
remand report of the A.O and after admitting additional
evidence as per rules, the ld. CIT(A) has considered the
following additions:
1. Enhancement of professional receipts Rs.2,51,043
2. Enhancement of Study consultancy Rs.3,05,617
3. Unexplained investment Rs.8,34,585
4. Unexplained cash deposit Rs.4,82,300
5. Addition against agriculture expenses Rs.2,00,000
6. Enhancement in household expenses Rs. 90,000

6. 6
4. We have found that the assessee did maintain his books
of account but could not produce the same before the A.O
due to the unfortunate incident of accident which he met.
The observation of the A.O that he did not maintain any
books of account is found to be not correct. The balance
sheet and return of income tally in respect of figures
mentioned in the balance sheet and return of income filed.
On 6.11.2013, the assessee appeared before the A.O and filed
his reply. The A.O directed him to produce the books of
account which could not be produced due to the
aforementioned reasons. Before the ld. CIT(A), the books of
account were produced alongwith sworn and duly attested
affidavit certifying assessee’s admission in hospital. In this
background, the ld. CIT(A) has admitted the additional
evidence. For another period during which the assessee was
hospitalized in Sharda Nursing Home from 6.11.2013 to
18.11.2013, a medical certificate has been produced.
5. The A.O has enhanced professional receipts by Rs.
2,51,043/- by estimating total such receipts at Rs. 5 lakhs
and since the assessee has disclosed receipts from his

7. 7
profession at Rs. 2,48,957/-, remaining amount of Rs.
2,51,043/- has been added.
6. After considering the rival submissions, we have found
that the estimation made by the A.O is unfounded and based
on no reason. The simple reason that the assessee is a
reputed advocate, practicing at Anoopgarh cannot be any
reason for making such wild estimations. Accordingly, the
enhanced estimated professional receipts to the extent of Rs.
2,51,043/- has been correctly deleted. Similarly, in case any
addition is made in respect of study visa consultancy. The
assessee has taken a franchisee of a company having agency
for admission abroad. As per agreement, 10% of tuition fees
is payable to this assessee. No charges for visa fees, e-visa,
etc. is chargeable by the assessee. The A.O has added total
amount received and deposited in his bank account to be
further forwarded to the institutions abroad through his
principal company from whom he has taken franchisee. The
A.O ahs estimated assessee’s income in this account without
any basis which has been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). We are
also in agreement with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and hold

8. 8
that the impugned addition is based on adhoc estimation
based on no logic.
7. The facts of the third ground of Revenue’s appeal are
that from the debit and credit entries found in assessee’s
bank account on 28.8.2008, the A.O has added Rs. 8,34,585/.
Before the ld. CIT(A), copy of bank account in SBBJ was
produced and in this bank account, amount received by the
assessee from students for the purpose of remittance to the
foreign institutions where students want to get admission are
found deposited. The remittance of the amount to foreign
institutions was also established and the entries in this pass
book has been fully explained. The assessee received only
commission on such receipt of fees and not the entire amount
goes to his pocket. Accordingly, deletion of Rs. 8,34,585/- is
also found to be correctly deleted.
8. Ground No. 4 of Revenue’s appeal in respect of deletion
of addition of Rs. 4,82,300/- made on account of unexplained
cash credit in assessee’s accounts in SBBJ and ICICI,

9. 9
Anoopgarh certain deposits were found, details of which is as
under:
SBBJ 23.05.2008 25000
SBBJ 20.03.2009 89000
ICICI 21.04.2008 38300
ICICI 24.08.2008 330000
482300
9. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee explained each
deposit after mentioning name of the student alongwith copy
of passport and proof of remittance of fees belonging to that
student remitted to foreign institution. Thus the amount
credited in these banks stand fully explained. Moreover,
such addition cannot be made u/s 68 or u/s 69 of the Act
because a bank pass book is not a books of account.
Accordingly, the impugned addition is also quite in order.
10. Next ground is regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 2
lakhs made on account of agriculture expenditure and reason
for this addition is that the assessee has shown net income of
Rs. 3 lakhs from his agricultural activities but has not
disclosed the related expenses. Accordingly, on estimation

10. 10
basis, this amount has been added which has been deleted by
the ld. CIT(A) by holding to be a sheer baseless estimation.
11. After hearing both the sides, we fall in line with the
finding of the ld. CIT(A) and confirm the impugned deletion.
12. Last ground of this appeal is regarding deletion of Rs.
1,65,000/- made on account of professional receipts.
13. This ground has been disposed of in line with Ground No.
1 of this appeal. Accordingly, ground raised by the Revenue
in this appeal stands dismissed.
14. In assessee’s appeal, only two effective grounds have
been raised – one in relation to sustenance of addition of Rs.
50,000/- in the account of professional receipt and the other
one in the account of house hold withdrawals of Rs. 25,000/-.
Both these sustained additions are found to be baseless as we
have found the other additions made in assessee’s hands.
Accordingly, we cannot uphold the impugned additions and
delete them being baseless and without any reason.

11. 11
15. To sum up, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.
266/JU/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10 stands allowed and the appeal
of the Revenue in ITA No. 352/JU/2014 for A.Y. 2009-10
stands dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Court on 03rd
September, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 03rd
September, 2014
VL/-
Copy to:
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT By Order
4. The CIT(A)
5. The DR
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, Jodhpur