SRI.A. KAMALUDEEN THANGAL,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE DCIT, TRIVANDRUM

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the proprietor of Sherinco and Sherin Electro Systems. The return of income for AY 2012- 13 was filed declaring total income of Rs. 52,150/-. The AO states that a search and seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was carried out in the case of Travancore Education Society and others. Consequential survey operations u/s. 133A were conducted in the A. Kamaludden Thangal business premises of the appellant. During the course of search operations u/s. 132 in the case of Travancore Education Society certain documents, stated to be incriminating, were found and seized. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 142(1) was issued to the appellant. In response to the notice appellant filed his return of income. Against the said return of income assessment was completed by DCIT, Central Circle-1, Trivandrum (hereinafter called "the AO") based on the seized material vide order dated 31.03.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 13,07,315/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of Rs. 7,60,000/- disbelieving the agricultural income. He also made addition of Rs. 5,05,165/- as unexplained expenditure incurred towards tuition fee and hostel fee of his son.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order confirmed the addition made by the AO solely on the ground that the appellant had not maintained any books of account for agricultural activities and the appellant also failed to substantiate the claim with evidence. The CIT(A) also confirmed the addition on account of unexplained expenditure on education of his son.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.

When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned Sr. DR. A. Kamaludden Thangal 6. I carefully perused the material on record. The validity of the assessment order was challenged for want of reasonable opportunity for representing the matter before the AO. It is further contended that copy of the seized documents and satisfaction note were not made available to the appellant. He further challenged the addition on the ground that in the absence of any incriminating material no addition can be made pursuant to notice issued u/s. 153C of the Act. I have carefully perused the orders of the lower authorities and found merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee as the assessment order is silent about the incriminating material found during the course of search action. Accordingly I set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the file of the AO with a direction to complete the assessment after furnishing copies of seized material in relation to the appellant herein and affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.