SANTLAL ENTERPRISE,SILIGURI vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), , SILIGURI

The issue raised in ground no.1 by the assessee is against the order of learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act dated 19.03.2025 is bad in law and the same may be quashed.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed the return of income on 08.06.2018, declaring total income at ₹nil. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS, statutory notices along with questionnaire were duly served upon the assessee. The assessee complied with the said

In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT (A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of ₹2,50,00,000/- as made by the learned AO u/s 50(2)(x) of the Act and the Revenue is not in appeal before us while the learned CIT (A) sustained the addition of ₹23,30,000/-.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that ₹23,30,000/- was added by the learned AO on protective basis u/s 68 of the Act read with section 115BBE of the Act as unexplained cash deposit. In our opinion the protective assessment is a type of assessment made in order to protect the interest of the Revenue nonetheless there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to charge tax on a person other than a person on whom the tax is lawfully payable but its customary to make protective / alternative addition if it is not ascertainable as to who is the real person who is liable to pay the tax. In other words, if the

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.