DCIT - CC - 6(3), MUMBAI vs. HANSA KAILASH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5621/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 June 2021AY 2015-163 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 since the addition was accepted in the assessment of M/s. Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd. on a substantive basis, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained. The CIT(A) was therefore correct in deleting the addition.

What were the facts?

During a search, jewellery worth Rs. 3,31,59,996/- was found at the assessee's premises. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of this amount. The assessee had not challenged this addition on technical grounds before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a protective addition made in the hands of the assessee can be sustained when the same amount has been substantively accepted in the hands of another entity.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Hearing: 16.06.2021Pronounced: 16.06.2021

Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee have been preferred against the order dated (Revenue’s appeal) 2. The issue raised by the Revenue in ground no. 1 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition of Rs.3,31,59,996/- as made by the AO on account of jewellery found during the course of search at the premises of the assessee.

3.

In the 2nd ground, the Revenue has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that assessee has challenged this addition before the tribunal despite admitting the fact before Ld. CIT(A) that it has not challenged the substantial addition on technical ground.

4.

After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material on record, we note that this addition of Rs.3,31,59,996/- has been accepted by the assessee in the assessment of M/s. Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd. in A.Y. 2015-16 and therefore there is merit in the submission of the Ld. A.R. that the appeal of the Revenue becomes infructuous and it has to be dismissed.

5.

The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, fairly submitted that if this is accepted in the hands of Nish Developers in A.Y. 2015-16 then the appeal of the Revenue may kindly be decided accordingly.

6.

After hearing the rival parties and perusing the materials on records, we find that this addition of Rs.3,31,59,996/- has 3 & CO No.194/M/2019 Ms. Hansa Kailash Agarwal been accepted in the hands of M/s. Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd. which was made on substantive basis and therefore , protective addition made by the AO in the hands of the assessee can not be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly passed the order by deleting the addition in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. CO No.194/M/2019 7. Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press the Cross Objection at the time of hearing and accordingly the same is dismissed as not pressed.

8.

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well as assessee’s cross objection are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.06.2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →