Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed three appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) concerning Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22. These appeals arose from proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, where 'protective' additions were made.
Held
The Tribunal held that 'protective' additions cannot be made in proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act solely to protect the Revenue's interest, citing the case of DHFL Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO.
Key Issues
Whether 'protective' additions can be made under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 148, 69A
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, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2019-20 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Lokesh Kumar Srivastava, Vs DCIT, D-801, Aarcity Regancy Park, Central Circle-31, Greater Noida West, Gaur City-2, New Delhi-110055 Bishrakh, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201306 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BTRPS1830D Assessee by: Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Piyush Sinha, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals in ITA Nos. 4887, 4888 & 4889/Del/2025 for Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22, arise against the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1077255580(1), 1077255812(1) & 1077256047(1) all dated 20.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
A combined perusal of the assessee’s instant three appeals reveals at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have made “protective” additions u/s 69A in his 4888 & 4889/Del/2025 Lokesh Kumar Srivastava hands in section 148/147 proceedings; involving varying sums, whereas the corresponding substantive additions have been made in the case(s) of a political party namely Public Political Party.
This being the clinching factual position, the tribunal thereby quotes DHFL Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO (2013) 34 taxmann.com 300 (Bom.) wherein their lordships have settled the issue in the assessee’s favour and against the department that such a “protective” addition could not be made in section 148/147 proceedings only to protect the Revenue’s interest and quash the impugned protective addition in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
All other pleadings on merits between the parties stand rendered academic.