ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, NEW DELHI vs. SAROJ BHAITA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 997/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 March 2024AY 2012-13Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma (Judicial Member)2 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, observing that the identical addition had already been confirmed on a substantive basis in the hands of Smt. Saroj Bhatia's husband, Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia, by both the CIT(A) and ITAT. Consequently, the protective addition in the assessee's case was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 2,28,50,411/- made on a protective basis to Smt. Saroj Bhatia's income. This addition stemmed from cash credits and deposits in a bank account of M/s Chaudhary & Co. registered in her name but operated by her husband, Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia.

What were the issues?

Whether a protective addition can be sustained when the substantive addition for the same amount has been confirmed in the hands of another party (assessee's husband).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 131(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Anubhav Sharma

Hearing: 07.02.2024Pronounced: 08.03.2024

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 11.01.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:

“(i) The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleted the addition of Rs.2,28,50,411/- in the hand of Smt. Saroj Bhatia since the bank account of M/s Chaudhary & Co. is registered in the name of Smt. Saroj Bhatia. (ii) The Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,28,50,411/- on the basis that the addition is made on protective basis and that the addition on substantive basis has been confirmed in the hands of her husband i.e. Shri Ram Prakash Bhatia. However, Shri Ram Prakash Bhatia has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 10.03.2023 against the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).”

2 Saroj Bhatia 3. The assessee had instituted appeal against the assessment order passed u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2019 at an assessed income of Rs. 2,28,51,411/-. The addition of Rs. 2,28,50,411/- was made to the returned income on protective basis. Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia husband of Smt. Saroj Bhatia accepted in his statement recorded u/s 131(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 during survey on 08.08.2014 that the M/s Chaudhary & Co. is being operated by him. And further that the bank account of M/s Chaudahary & Co. registered in the name of Smt. Saroj Bhatia was operated by her husband Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia. Thus, the addition made on the protective basis on the basis of cash credits and cash deposits in the said bank account are already made on substantive basis in the hands of Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia and has been confirmed at the first appellate stage by the CIT(A)-24 New Delhi vide order Delhi- 24/10343/2019-20 dated 11.01.2023 and in the order of ITAT in dated 04.01.2024.

4.

Since, the addition has already been dealt on substantive basis in the hands of Sh. Ram Prakash Bhatia, husband of the assessee. Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is liable to be dismissed.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →