BIJU THOTTATHIL MATHEW,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA, KALPETTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 905/COCH/2023Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 September 2024AY 2015-16Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member), Shri Amarjit Singh (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that making a protective addition first and then a substantive addition later is not sustainable. A protective addition should follow a substantive addition when there is doubt about taxability in multiple assessee's hands.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 was against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The lower authorities made a protective assessment of Rs. 2,03,02,558/- under Section 69B.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of making a protective addition before a substantive addition by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN

Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.08.2024

Assessment Year 2015-16 Sri.Biju Thottathil Mathew The Income Tax Officer Thottathil, Kottooli v. Ward-2, Kalpetta. Mammilimeethal Paramba Kozhikode – 673 016. PAN : ADAPT7151Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : ------- None ------ Respondent by : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date of Date of Hearing : 12.08.2024 Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057136409(1) dated 17.10.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceed exparte.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that both the lower authorities have made section 69B protective assessment of Rs.2,03,02,558/- in assessee’s hands. Learned D.R. vehemently argues that vide assessment findings in para 3, the Assessing Officer had made his intention clear for the purpose of making substantive Sri.Biju Thottathil Mathew. assessment in proportional terms. We are afraid that such a course of action in making a protective addition first and substantive addition latter is not sustainable in light of Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC) and Suersh K. Jajoo v. ACIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum) supporting assessee’s case that a protective addition comes to play then there arises a doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer regarding taxability of an income in case of more than one assessee, he could indeed make a substantive addition followed by the protective one and not vice versa. Faced with situation, we deem it as a fit case to delete the impugned protective addition in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th Day of September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →