What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the protective addition was confirmed due to lack of representation and that the substantive assessment was pending. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2012-13 against an order confirming a protective addition of Rs. 230.39 Lacs. The appeal was filed with a delay of 147 days, which was condoned. The substantive assessment was pending before the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the protective addition confirmed due to lack of representation should be adjudicated in light of the pending substantive assessment.

Rupinder Garg, Patiala vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2025

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 25-01-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 28-12-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of protective addition of Rs.230.39 Lacs. The registry has noted delay of 147 days in the appeal which stand condoned. The Ld. AR stated that the substantive assessment is pending for adjudication before Ld. first appellate authority. The outcome of the same would have direct bearing on the fate of this appeal. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that the protective addition has been confirmed for want of any representation from the assessee. Considering this fact as well as the fact that the substantive assessment is already pending for adjudication before Ld. first appellate authority which would have direct bearing on the fate of this appeal, we set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of outcome of substantive assessment. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09-06-2025. (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09-06-2025. आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. ""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड"फाईल/GF

RUPINDER GARG,PATIALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, PATIALA , PATIALA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments