THOMAS CHANDY,KOTTAYAM vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, KOCHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member
ITA No. 880/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19)
Thomas Chandy DCIT, Circle TPS Karimpanal, Vizhikkithode Public Library Building vs. Kanjirapally, Kottayam 686507 Sashri Road [PAN: ADZPC3009P] Kottayam 686001 (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri R. Krishnan, CA Respondent by: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Date of Hearing: 19.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024
O R D E R Per Bench This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2018-19 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059988854(1) dated 22.01.2024 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Heard both parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have added “protective” long term capital gain amounting to Rs. 3,70,48,888/- in assessee’s hands followed by the very income assessed on substantive for the assessment year 2012-13. Meaning thereby that it is assessee only in whose hands both these substantive and protective assessments have been framed regarding the very impugned long term capital gain addition. That being the clinching case, we quote
2 ITA No. 880/Coch/2023 Thomas Chandy hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC) Lalji Haridas vs. ITO, setting the law of such a protective assessment framed on ex abundanti cautela i.e., “out of an abundant caution:” reading as follows: "In cases where it appears to the income tax authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant previous year but it is not clear who has received the income and prima facie it appears that the income may have been received either by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant income tax authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B."
We conclude in these facts that once such a concept of "protective" addition is not maintainable in the same assessee's hands in different assessment years going by "A and B" principle, the impugned long term capital gains assessed in his hands deserve to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd October, 2014. Sd/- Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) (Satbeer Singh Godara) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Cochin, Dated: 23rd October, 2024 n.p. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT concerned 4. The Sr. DR, ITAT, Cochin 5. Guard File
Assistant Registrar ITAT, Cochin
