to the income of the assessee. Thirdly, the assessing authority also noticed that only a sum of Rs.15,612/- was withdrawn for household expenses whereas the assessee's family consists of his wife and two daughters and the assessee, in his written submission, stated that household expenses of Rs.4000/- per month were being spent by him, and therefore, a further amount of Rs.32,338/- was added to his income and resultantly, the total taxable income of the above-said three figures of Rs.2,58,015/-, Rs.1,39,778/- and Rs.32,338/- was assessed under the three heads and total taxable income was rounded-off as Rs.4,30,130. In the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Chandigarh, the assessee claimed that notice under Section 148 of the Act was not on account of independent application of mind by the assessing authority and that net income at the rate of 20% of the total sale turn-over was not justified on the ground that he was appointed as agent of M/s Johnson & Johnson for the heart surgery equipment from February, 2000 for the first time in the assessment year 2000-2001; and before that, he was only dealing in trading of branded medicines. Regarding taking of loan of Rs.1,39,778/from eight persons, affidavit of Wadhu Ram, father of the appellant and his three brothers was filed. The addition of Rs.32,338/- on account of household expenses was contested on the ground that the appellant's wife was Post-Graduate with qualification of M.A. B.Ed and was conducting tuition, and therefore, no addition towards household expenses was called
