Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against an order upholding the deletion of a protective addition made in the assessee's hands, which was similar to a substantive addition made in Ritesh Kumar Gupta's case. The substantive addition in Ritesh Kumar Gupta's case had already been deleted by the ITAT.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the substantive addition in the related case of Ritesh Kumar Gupta was deleted by the ITAT, the protective addition made in the assessee's hands for the same assessment year also did not survive. Consequently, the deletion by the CIT(A) was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether a protective addition in the assessee's hands can survive if the substantive addition in a related case has been deleted by the ITAT?
Sections Cited
153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JM: the assessee are directed against the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the Ld.
CIT(A)-24, New Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi-24/10004/2019-20, arising out of the order dated 30.12.2018 passed by the AIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2015-16.
At the time of hearing of the instant appeal Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the Ld. AO made protective addition in the hands of the assessee before us, whereas substantive addition was made in the case of Ritesh Kumar Gupta for A.Y. 2015-16, which was ultimately challenged before the ITAT and the Coordinate Bench by and under its order dated 19.03.2025 in has deleted such addition, which was found to have been made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of assessment; reference of any incriminating material was not reflecting in the assessment order.
Having regard to this particular aspect of the matter the order impugned dated 9.2.2021, as challenged by the Revenue whereby and where-under considering the fact of confirmation of addition of Rs. 9,32,76,252/- in the hands of Shri Ritesh Kumar Gupta, where addition was made on substantive basis, protective addition of the same amount made in the hands of the appellant has acceptable. Such submission on the factual aspect has not been controverted by the ld. DR. Hence, having regard to this particular fact of substantive addition made in the hands of Ritish Kumar Gupta, which has been deleted by the ITAT for the year under consideration, as narrated herein above, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee before us does not survive. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting such addition is, therefore, found to be in order, not warranting any interference. The appeal preferred by the Revenue is thus, dismissed.
In view of our finding in Revenue’s appeal, the C.O. preferred by the assessee has also become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. cross-objection in CO No. 77/Del/2023 are dismissed.