Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's three appeals for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2012-13 arise from orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was proceeded ex-parte as none appeared on their behalf. The appeals were filed with a delay of 236 days, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be sustained in the absence of corresponding substantive assessments in any other person's hands. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO, the Tribunal noted that protective additions are made when there is doubt about whose hands the income should be taxed.
Key Issues
Whether protective additions can be sustained without a corresponding substantive addition in the hands of another person.
Sections Cited
143(3), IT Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, “DB” AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
This assessee’s three appeals 172, 173 & 174/Agr/2024 for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2012-13 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054255086(1); ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1054255292(1) and ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054255521(1), all dated 10.07.2023, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Cases called twice. None appears at the assessee’s/appellant’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex- parte.
Identical delay of 236 days in filing the assessee’s instant three appeals is condoned in the larger interest of justice.
Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly added the impugned protective additions of Rs. 24,43,000/- lakhs, Rs.71,45,900/- and Rs. 1,08,25,000/-; assessment year-wise respective going by the alleged seized material found during the course of search herein carried out on 08.07.2011, which deserves to be upheld in the light of hon’ble apex court’s recent landmark decision of PCIT Vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (2023) 454 ITR 212.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions and we find no reason to sustain the impugned protective additions for the precise reason that the learned Assessing Officer’s identical detailed discussion in all these three
2 | P a g e cases makes it clear that the corresponding substantive addition “is to be made” in case of M/s. Chemist Tower, a partnership firm (wherein the appellate is a partner) and the necessary information is being sent to the concerned Assessing Officer separately. This being the clinching factual position emanating from the case records, we hold that any protective addition in absence of the corresponding substantive assessment in any other person’s hands, does not satisfy the test of law going by the hon’ble apex court’s landmarks decision in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC). Their lordships have settled the issue long-back in assessee’s favour that a protective addition arises wherein there is a doubt in the Assessing Officer’s mind(s) as to in whose hands particular receipt of income is to be taxed.
We thus conclude that the impugned protective addition without there being any substantive addition made in the course of the assessment in the assessee’s/partner’s hands deserves to be deleted. These three impugned identical assessments framed on 21.03.2014 are hereby quashed in very terms. Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic.