DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHYAM SHANKER GUPTA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5909/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 February 2017AY 2009-104 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 held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the protective addition as the substantive addition for the same issue was confirmed in the hands of another person. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 46,28,725/- on account of commission earned by the assessee for providing bogus entries. The assessee contended that a substantive addition for the same amount was confirmed in the hands of another person, Sh. Rajvir Singh, and therefore, a protective addition was not justified.

What were the issues?

Whether a protective addition is justified when a substantive addition for the same income has been confirmed in the hands of another person.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

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

  • 100 TTJ 508
    100 TTJ 508 · ITAT
    10 citing

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

Hearing: 08.02.2017Pronounced: 08.02.2017

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 5909/Del/2013
CO No. 295/Del/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM:

The appeal by the department and the Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order dated 30.08.2013 of ld. CIT(A)-XXXI, New Delhi.

2.

In the departmental appeal the only effective ground raised

reads as under: 2 CO No. 295/Del/2015 Shyam Shanker Gupta “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the protective addition of Rs.46,28,725/- made by AO on account of commission earned on providing bogus entries by Sh. Rajvir Singh.”

3. During the course of assessment proceedings the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the substantive addition of the same amount has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30.08.2013 in the case of Sh. Rajvir Singh who has accepted and not challenged the same before the ITAT. It was further stated that in the said case of Sh. Rajvir Singh, before the ld. CIT(A), only the rate of commission was challenged and not the earning of commission. It was stated that when the substantive addition has been made already in the hands of Sh. Rajvir Singh, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee was not justified. The reliance was placed on the following decision of the ITAT:

� Baby Sarojini Vs DCIT in IT(SS)A No. 117/Hyd/2004 order dated 15.05.2008 � Parasmal Dangi Alias Parasmall Jain Vs ACIT 100 TTJ 508 3 CO No. 295/Del/2015 Shyam Shanker Gupta 4. In his rival submissions the ld. DR although supported the order of the AO but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

5.

We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the substantive addition was made by the AO in the hands of Sh. Rajvir Singh who challenged the rate of commission before the ld. CIT(A) and the action of the AO was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). In the present case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated at bar that no further appeal was preferred by Sh. Rajvir Singh. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts are of the confirmed view that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the protective addition when for the same issue the substantive addition was confirmed in hands of the another person i.e. Sh. Rajvir Singh. We, therefore, do not see merit in this appeal of the department.

6.

As regards to the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he has instruction not to press the Cross Objection and gave in writing as under: “Cross Objection withdrawn”. 4 CO No. 295/Del/2015 Shyam Shanker Gupta 7. In view of the above, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the department and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 08/02/2017)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →