SHRI SANDEEPBHATI,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-27, DELHI

PDF

ITA 3951/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 December 2025AY 2019-20Bench: the learned CIT(A) as fairly 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 the3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed (for statistical purposes)

Facts

The assessee filed eight appeals against CIT(A) orders for AYs 2013-14 to 2020-21, challenging protective assessments framed under Section 153C r.w. Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. These assessments were initiated following a search action, and the lower authorities had made protective additions. The counsel for the assessee raised various legal arguments, including improper recording of Section 153C satisfaction.

Held

The Tribunal observed that the corresponding substantive assessments were still pending before the CIT(A). To prevent multiplicity of proceedings and contradictory findings, the Tribunal decided that the protective assessments should await the final outcome of the substantive appeals. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the finalization of the substantive assessments, with all other legal and factual issues kept open.

Key Issues

Whether the protective assessments framed under Section 153C r.w. Section 143(3) should be adjudicated or sustained when the corresponding substantive assessments are still pending before the CIT(A).

Sections Cited

153C, 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · SC
238 citing

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 22.12.2025Pronounced: 22.12.2025

Asstt. Year : 2019-20 : 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 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.