JUDGMENT
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. The assessee is a partner of M/s Don Bosco Industries, M/s Right Stationery Products and M/s Don Bosco Card Centre. The business as well as residential premises of the assessee were searched under Section 132 of the IT Act on 4th Jan., 1996 and AO issued notice under Section 158BC calling upon the assessee to file return of income for the block period from 1st April, 1985 to 4th Jan., 1996. Notice was served on the assessee on 29th Aug., 1996. Since the assessee did not file any return of income, notice under Section 142(1) was issued on 23rd Sept., 1996, directing the assessee to produce books of account on 15th Oct., 1996. The case was later re-posted on 10th Dec, 1996 as the assessee himself had made a request for further time to file return.
2. The assessee later filed a cash flow statement for the block period from 1st April, 1985 to 4th Jan., 1996 relating to all the firms and partners. In the statement produced, the assessee has declared only Rs. 3,10,200 as the total expenditure associated with domestic and personal expenses, which, in the opinion of the assessing authority, was on the lower side. The AO found that in the sworn statement recorded on 5th Jan., 1996 the assessee has admitted that the total expenditure for household purposes was Rs. 6,500 per month. After holding detailed discussions with the assessee and his Authorised Representative, the AO himself prepared a cash flow statement for the period from 1st April, 1985 to 4th Jan., 1996 at Rs. 19,61,495 as against Rs. 18,20,182 shown by the assessee. Therefore, the AO arrived at the unexplained income at Rs. 1,41,310. The AO also calculated income-tax on the said unexplained income at 60 per cent and made a demand of Rs. 84,786 as payable by the assessee.
3. The Tribunal has not accepted the said order stating that the computation of the domestic expenses at Rs. 3,99,000 for the block period appears to be motivated because the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted. It is not known from the order of the Tribunal, how it was motivated. No acceptable explanation is given by the Tribunal for rejecting the order passed by the assessing authority. AO prepared a cash flow statement after consultation with the representative of the assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal is in error in rejecting the cash flow statement prepared by the AO. In the circumstances we are inclined to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal will call for records including statement of the assessee for considering reasonable domestic expenses and pass appropriate orders without any delay.