What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The deletion of the protective assessment was upheld as the substantive assessment was confirmed in the hands of the identified entry operator.

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a protective assessment made in the assessee's hands. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition because the substantive assessment was made in the hands of another person, Sh. Vaibhav Jain, who was identified as the real entry operator.

What were the issues?

Whether a protective assessment made in the hands of an assessee can be sustained when the substantive assessment has been made in the hands of another person identified as the real entry operator.

ITO vs Raj Kumar Arora, New Delhi | ITAT Delhi 2021

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Respondent: Ms. Shirumi Bansal, Sr. DR

Hearing: 13.09.2021

PER B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, dated 29.01.2018.

Raj Kumar Arora 2. The only grievance of revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the protective addition made by the revenue in the case of the assessee on the reason that the substantive assessment has been made in the case of one person namely Sh. Vaibhav Jain has been treated as the real entry operator and the addition in the case of Sh. Vaibhav Jain has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) 32 vide order dated 26.03.2014 Hence, we find no infirmity in the order and decline to interfere with the reasoning of the Ld. CIT(A) on this aspect.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 16th day of November, 2021.

ITO, WARD-45(4), NEW DELHI vs. RAJ KUMAR ARORA, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments