ANISHA GUPTA,NOIDA vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-60(1), DELHI

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Ved Jain pointed out that in assessee’s case the addition of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C was made by the AO on protective basis. He took us through the assessment order wherein, this fact is recorded in para 7. Simultaneously, he took us through the reasons recorded, which are enclosed at Assessee’s Paper Book Page 81 and stated that notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to make the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee and substantive addition is to be made in the hands of the Hydro Technology. Ld. Counsel further stated that the proceedings of assessment in the case of Hydro Technology are pending with the CIT(A) and according to him both the appeals should be heard together so that the decision can be taken where the substantive addition is to be confirmed. Hence, he requested that the matter may be restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with the directions to consolidate these appeals and substantive and protective additions should be decided at one go in both the cases. When these facts were pointed out to Ld. Sr. DR of the Department, he also agreed to the said proposition.

After hearing the rival contentions and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to consolidate the appeals in the case of the assessee as well as in the case of Hydro Technology and then decide where substantive addition is to be confirmed in regard to the cash paid of Rs. 67,75,000/-. In terms of above, matter restored back to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication alongwith the appeal of the Hydro Technology where the substantive addition is proposed in the reasons recorded.