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

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 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.

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.

On the other hand, the ld. DR has not raised any objection.

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.

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