DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2), MUMBAI vs. SAMIRA CONSTRUCTION INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 860/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 December 2022AY 2011-125 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the substantive additions were sent back for fresh adjudication, the protective additions in the hands of the assessee should also be restored to the CIT(A) for a combined decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions on a protective basis in the hands of Samira Construction India Ltd. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, stating that substantive additions were confirmed in the hands of a sister concern. However, the substantive additions were later set aside by a coordinate bench for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether protective additions can be deleted when substantive additions have not reached finality, and if so, what is the course of action when substantive additions are subsequently set aside for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 18.10.2022Pronounced: 29.12.2022
1.

These are two appeals filed by the ld. Assessing officer against the consolidated order of the ld. CIT [A] for two years where the addition made by the ld. AO in the hands of assessee on protective basis is deleted. for A.Y. 2010-11 is filed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai, (the Assessing Officer) against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax

3.

The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, whether the learned CIT (A) is justified in deleting the addition made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee , even though the sustentative addition has not reached finality.” 04. In both the appeals, the grievance of the learned Assessing Officer is that the learned CIT (A) has deleted the addition made in the hands of this assessee on protective basis even though the substantive addition has not reached finality.

5.

The brie fact of the case shows that for A.Y. 2010-11 the assessee filed its return of income on 14thOctober 2010 at ₹ nil. Search under Section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 21st March, 2013 was conducted on Samira group. Notice under Section 153A was issued on 2nd May, 2014, in response to which the return at ₹ nil was filedon 9th December, 2014. The assessment order under Section 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act was passed on 15th March, 2014 assessing the total income of the assessee at ₹1,12,57,000/-. The learned Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹1,12,57000/- on protective basis in the hands of the assessee and substantively in the hands of the sisters concern i.e. Samira Habitats India Ltd.

7.

Similarly, for A.Y. 2011-12, the addition of ₹2,07,78,750/- was deleted as substantive addition in the hands of Samira Habitats India Ltd. was confirmed. The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved with the same.

8.

At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel submitted that in case of Samira Habitats India Ltd. in to 397 and 532/Mum/2022 for A.Y. 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2013-14, the orders of the learned CIT (A) were contested and by order dated 19th July, 2022, the co-ordinate bench has set aside the issue back to the learned CIT (A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the substantive addition has also gone back to the learned CIT (A) and therefore, the protective additions should also go back to the learned CIT (A).

9.

The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer. However, he contested that the learned CIT (A) has wrongly deleted the addition on protective basis, despite substantive addition has not reached the finality.

11.

In the result, both the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.12.2022.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →