SHRI SANDEEP BHATI,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the 'protective' assessments must await the final outcome of the 'substantive' appeals pending before the CIT(A) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and contradictory findings. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the finalization of the substantive assessments, keeping all other legal and factual issues open.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed eight appeals against protective assessments framed under Section 153C read with Section 143(3) for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2020-21, following a search action dated 16.10.2019. The lower authorities had made protective additions due to doubts regarding the proper hands for assessment. Crucially, the corresponding 'substantive' assessments for the same additions were still pending before the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether protective assessments can be finalized when substantive assessments for the same additions are pending before the CIT(A); and the alleged improper recording of Section 153C satisfaction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Lalji Haridas v. ITO238 citing43 ITR 387 · 1961 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
Heard together (8 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Asstt. Year : 2013-14 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 ITA No. 3950/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 ITA No. 3951/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 ITA No. 3952/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Sh. Sandeep, Vs DCIT, H. No. 172, Village Amipur, Central Circle-27, Faridabad, Haryana-121101 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BRZPS1335M Assessee by : Sh. S. S. Nagar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 22.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.12.2025 ORDER Per Bench: These assessee’s eight appeals ITA Nos. 3945 to 3952/Del/2025, for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2020-21, arise against the CIT(A)-31, Delhi’s in DIN & order Nos. TIBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1074808468(1), 1074810935(1), 1074806874(1), 1074809950(1), 1074807482(1), 1074809226(1), 1074811935(1) and 1074812314(1) all dated 21.03.2025 in proceedings u/s 153C r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
We notice at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action inter alia framing section 153C r.w.s. 143(3) assessments dated 30.03.2023, in furtherance to the search action dated 16.10.2019 in Navin Mahipal group of cases etc.
That being the case, learned CIT-DR vehemently supports all the impugned assessments on legality as well as on merits wherein both the lower authorities have made protective additions under various heads involving varying sums. He quotes Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC) to buttress the point that as and when there arises the doubt in the learned assessing authority’s mind as to in whose hands a particular head of income is to be assessed, it could indeed frame such a “protective” assessment to safeguard the Revenue’s interest.
Learned counsel representing assessee on the other hand seeks to raise various legal arguments inter alia going to root of the matter i.e. alleged improper recording of section 153C satisfaction and other related issues. The fact however remains that the corresponding “substantive” assessments are still stated to be pending before the learned CIT(A) as fairly to 3952/Del/2025 Sandeep informed by both the parties. We therefore deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to observe that all these “protective” assessments must await the final outcome of the substantive appeals which are pending before the learned CIT(A) in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and mutually contradictory findings; as the case may be. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeals back to the learned CIT(A) for his afresh appropriate adjudication after awaiting the final outcome of the corresponding substantive assessments; as per law. Ordered accordingly.
All other legal issues as well as those on merits between the parties are kept open at this stage.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Shri Sandeep Bhati, Faridabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-27, DelhiDelhi22 Dec 2025Remanded
Also relies on Lalji Haridas v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the 'protective' assessments must await the final outcome of the 'substantive' appeals pending before the CIT(A) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and contradictory findings. Consequently, the a...
- Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V… vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax…Bangalore16 Jul 2025Remanded
Also relies on Lalji Haridas v. ITO
The Tribunal held that in unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A can only be made if there is incriminating material found during the search related to the specific addition. The reliance on the Abhisar ...
- Pratibha Singh, Shimla vs ACIT Circle, Circle ShimlaChandigarh25 Feb 2026Dismissed
Also relies on Lalji Haridas v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to prove the source of funds for the investment and the HUF's ownership. The addition was correctly made substantively in the assessee's hands, and a protective addition was not...
- Surendra Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle 32, New DelhiDelhi4 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on Lalji Haridas v. ITO
The Tribunal held that while a protective assessment can be made to safeguard revenue interest when there is doubt about the income's recipient, such a basis must be supported by a substantive addition. In this case, no ...
- Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), Ghaziabad vs Sanjay Thakur, GhaziabadDelhi2 Sept 2025Dismissed
Also relies on Lalji Haridas v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's attempt to revive a protective addition was not sustainable, as Section 147 proceedings cannot be initiated solely for making a protective addition. Relying on precedents, it was dete...
More judgments on Section 153C
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ajay Singh, Kota vs DCIT, Central Circle, KotaITA 495/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Dineshkumar Chhaganlal Manavadaria, Junagadh vs ITO Ward 1, JunagadhITA 837/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026