SATHEES KUMAR HUF, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2643/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0641 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(1); 69B

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2643/Chny/2019 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Sathees Kumar HUF, No. 123, St Mary’s Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [PAN:AADHC0380A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Dr. I.P. Roopa, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 05.01.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai dated 25.06.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Facts are, in brief, that the assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 30.09.2019 admitting total income of ₹.1,83,480/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under I.T.A. No. 2643/Chny/19 2 section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961[“Act” in short]. In this case, the assessee has purchased a property and same was not disclosed in the return of income. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened and the assessee was asked to explain the source of purchase of property. The assessee has submitted that the source is from HUF. However, the assessee has unable to explain with supporting evidence with respect to the source of purchase of property. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition under section 69B of the Act in individual status and also made addition on substantive basis in the hands of HUF, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on appeal. 3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the assessee, Individual Shri Sathees Kumar has opted for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme 2020 and paid the taxes and filed Form No. 4 before us and submitted that the addition being on protective basis, the substantive addition cannot survive for the reason that the assessee has already paid taxes under VSVS 2020. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has not raised any objection. I.T.A. No. 2643/Chny/19 3 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In this case, the assessee, in his individual status, opted for the Vivad-se- Vishwas Scheme 2020 and paid the taxes and filed Form No. 4 and therefore, we are of the opinion that the substantive addition cannot survive. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 05 th January, 2022 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 05.01.2022 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.