DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. INDO METAL IMPEX PVT. LTD., DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7031/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that 'protective' additions are made to safeguard the Revenue's interest and should not be revived if substantive additions have already been confirmed in another person's hands. The appeal was accordingly rejected.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of 'protective' additions made on the basis of alleged accommodation entries and section 69B additions. The lower appellate authority had deleted these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether 'protective' additions can be sustained when substantive additions have already been confirmed in the hands of another assessee. The validity of reviving 'protective' additions after they have been deleted by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 08.04.2026Pronounced: 13.05.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi-23’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1080175045(1), dated 29.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No. 7031/Del/2025 Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It is noticed at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the Revenue’s sole substantive ground herein seeks to revive “protective” additions of Rs. 6,43,28,400/- made on the basis of alleged accommodation entries coupled with section 69B addition amounting to Rs. 4,18,83,274/- ; in the assessee’s hands as deleted in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned CIT(A) had deleted the impugned twin protective addition(s) for the sole reason that the corresponding substantive additions already stood confirmed in Shri Satyender Kumar Jain hands. Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC) has settled the issue long back that purpose of a “protective” addition is only to safeguard interest of the Revenue. We thus see no merit in Revenue’s grounds pleaded in this appeal seeking to revive the impugned “protective” additions herein in very terms. Rejected accordingly.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 7031/Del/2025

5.

This Revenue’s appeal ITA Nos. 7031/Del/2025 is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13/05/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13/05/2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →