ORDER
S.R. Chauhan, J.M.
As the above appeals involve common points so we are disposing them of by this common order for the sake of convenience.
2. These appeals by revenue have been filed for assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1986-87 respectively and are directed against the common order of Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, dated 28-2-1992.
3. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the records.
4. The revenue has raised the sole common ground disputing the cancellation of assessment (reassessment) in assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84, and has disputed the deletion of addition of professional receipts in assessment years 1984-85 and 1986-87.
5. The learned Departmental Representative of revenue has contended that in assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted the additions made by assessing officer in respect of professional receipts also cancelled the assessments. He has contended that the assessing officer had rightly estimated the professional receipts and had not made any separate addition on account of household expenses and has rather allowed telescopy in respect of the same. He has contended that in any case the assessment should not have been cancelled. Regarding the deletion of addition in professional receipts of assessee for assessment years 1984-85 and 1986-87 the learned Departmental Representative has raised the same arguments. He has supported the assessing officers order for all the above four assessment years.
6. As against the above the learned authorised representative of assessee has relied on the orders of learned Commissioner (Appeals). He has contended that the additions in professional receipts have been made without any basis whatever. He has contended that there was no evidence/material on record for making such estimate by assessing officer and so the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rightly deleted the addition. He has contended that no addition was made on account of household expenses and that even otherwise there was no basis/material on record for making any addition in household expenses. He has contended that in assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 addition in professional receipt was the only addition made in the reassessment made after reopening the original assessment, and so the reassessments for these two years were rightly cancelled. He has also contended that besides the above position on merits of appeals, all these four appeals of revenue are not maintainable/tenable as the tax effect involved in these appeals even cumulatively is of less than Rs. 25,000 and so the issue is covered in assessees favour by various decisions of Tribunal, Jodhpur.
7. We have considered the rival contentions as also relevant material on record. From the perusal of record it is revealed that the assessing officer has made the addition in professional receipts observing that the assessee has not maintained any accounts of his professional receipts and of household expenses and so he made addition in professional receipts on estimated basis holding that the assessee met his household expenses (over and above this is shown) out of this undisclosed professional receipt. In our considered opinion the assessing officer having not brought any cogent evidence/material on record supportive of giving increased/enhanced figurative expression to assessees professional income and his household expenses, the assessing officers action in making the impugned addition in reassessment proceedings was rightly held as not justified by learned Commissioner (Appeals), and in turn the deletion of addition is quite proper, and no fault is found with the same in each of the four assessment years under appeal before us. As in assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 the only addition made by assessing officer in reassessment was deleted by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on merits and there was no other addition so the assessments (reassessments) for these two years have been cancelled, though the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has not adjudicated upon validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147/148. In the situation, the question of validity of notice under section 148 having not been decided/adjudicated upon by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), is of no consequence before us though raised in the ground before us by revenue. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals). We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same.
8. In the result all the above four appeals of revenue are dismissed.