T.SENTHIL,ERODE vs. ITO WARD 2(5), ERODE

2018 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee Shri T. Senthil was claiming to be deriving income from real estate dealings on brokerage commission basis. During the course of election related surveillance on 06.04.2011, Shri |. Vinayakamoorthy, Cooperative Sub-Registrar,

1 As per section 153A of the Act, the assessee was to be assessed/ reassessed for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to previous year in which the search was conducted and for the assessment year relevant to previous year in which the search was conducted (as per section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, notices under section 153A of the Act were issued for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2011-12 on 24.11.2011. In response to these notices, the assessee filed NIL returns for all the above assessment years which were accepted and assessment completed for all the six years. Before the DDIT (Inv.), the assessee had offered no explanation for possession of cash of %.8,95,715/- and also no evidence/documents for the source for the seized cash.

2 For the assessment year 2012-13, the assessee filed a return of income on 09.10.2013 admitting NIL income and subsequently filed revised return on 26.12.2013 returning total income of %.1,80,000/-. A notice under section 143(2) of the Act was also issued and served on 03.03.2014. Subsequently, a questionnaire letter was issued on 03.12.2014 calling for various details. The AR of the assessee filed a reply on 30.03.2015 to the notice. However, he has not furnished the details such as breakup details of brokerage commission, name and address of persons from which received brokerage commission and proof for money received from his mother of %.3,40,000/- as called for vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act dated 27.03.2015. Though the assessee filed fund flow statement on 19.03.2015, in the absence of any credible evidence furnished in support of the fund flow statement, the assessee’s fund flow statement could not be construed as true and correct and accordingly, the Assessing Officer rejected the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer treated the cash found and seized from the assessee on 08.04.2011 of %.8,95,715/- as undisclosed income of the assessee under section 69A of the Act and brought to tax. On appeal, the Id. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard the Id. DR, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below including paper book filed by the assessee. The case of the assessee is that against the notices under section 153A of the Act issued requiring the assessee to file the returns of income for the assessment year 20-06-07 to 2011-12, the assessee filed returns of income for the above assessment year declaring NIL income on the assumption that the income were below tax limit inadvertently. However, the assessee rectified the mistake by making revised returns showing factual income of every year and furnished well before the proceedings initiated under section 143(2) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer has not considered the revised returns filed by the assessee. The assessee was asked to produce details of PAN, ID and other particulars of his brother which was complied with and accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any statement from the person(s) whose details were furnished before the Assessing Officer.

1 In para 7 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has stated

2 Under the above facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the addition made under section 69A of the Act.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.