JAGDISH SHARMA (HUF),JAHANABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, PATNA
Facts
The assessee preferred appeals against orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre for Assessment Years 1996-97 & 1999-00. There were delays in filing the appeals, which were condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee also applied for the Vivad Se Vishwas (VSV) scheme for substantive additions made in their individual capacity.
Held
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to dismiss the appeals as withdrawn. They noted that the substantive assessment was made in the individual's capacity, while protective additions were made in the HUF's name, making the protective assessment infructuous and liable for dismissal.
Key Issues
Whether protective additions in the hands of HUF can survive when substantive additions are made in individual capacity, and whether appeals can be dismissed as withdrawn upon availing the VSV scheme for substantive additions.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH, PATNA
Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA BENCH, PATNA VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos.198 & 203/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 1999-00 Jagdish Sharma (HUF).…………………………………………..………….……Appellant Korra, Ghoshi, Janhanabad, Bihar-804406. [PAN: AAIHS5678G] vs. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Patna……..….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT - Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 06, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : February 18, 2025 ORDER Per Bench: Both the captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for Assessment Years 1996-97 & 1999-00. Since, the issues are common and relate to the same assessee, therefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. At the outset, it is noted that there are delays of 26 days in filing both the present appeals. The assessee submitted separate applications for condonation of such delays stating reasons for such delay. After considering the applications, we find reasonable cause. We, therefore, condone the delays in filing both the appeals and proceed to adjudicate the appeals.
I.T.A. Nos.198 & 203/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 1999-00 Jagdish Sharma (HUF) 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that for the assessment year 1996-97 and for the assessment year 1999-2000, the appeals of the assessee in his individual capacity are pending before the ld. CIT(A) and substantive additions were made in the hands of the assessee as an individual, while simultaneous protective additions were made in the hands of the assessee as HUF Karta for the same assessment years in respect of the above appeals, therefore, both the substantive and protective addition cannot be sustained. In the intervening time, the assessee has opted to file two separate applications under Vivad Se Viswas (VSV) scheme before the competent authority in respect of each appeals relating to same assessment years, which are pending before the ld. CIT(A) and are in final stage of resolution under the VSV scheme. Considering this aspect, the ld. AR has requested before the Bench that the present appeals filed by the assessee in capacity of HUF be dismissed as withdrawn.
We, after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, we accept the assessee’s request and dismiss the captioned appeals as the assessee has availed the benefit of VSV scheme before the competent authority in respect of appeals relating to individual capacity for assessment years i.e. 1996-97 & 1999-2000. We also observe that in the case of Smt. Dayabai v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR 248 / 23 Taxman 377 (MP), the Hon’ble High Court observed that once the substantive assessment has been made, the protective assessment cannot survive in appeal. Since, in the instant case, the protective assessment was made in the hands of the HUF, while substantive assessment was made in the hands of actual income earner as individual capacity, therefore, the protective assessment becomes infructuous and it is liable to be dismissed.
I.T.A. Nos.198 & 203/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 1999-00 Jagdish Sharma (HUF) 4. In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed.
Kolkata, the 18th February, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member
Dated: 18.02.2025. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Jagdish Sharma (HUF) 2. DCIT, Central Circle-5, Patna 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),
//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches
