LOKESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,GREATER NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be made under Section 147/148 proceedings solely to protect the Revenue's interest. Referring to a precedent, the Tribunal quashed the impugned protective additions.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed three appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) related to Assessment Years 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22. The lower authorities made "protective" additions under Section 69A in proceedings under Section 147/148, while substantive additions were made in the case of a political party.
What were the issues?
Whether "protective" additions can be made under Section 147/148 proceedings when substantive additions are made in another entity's case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO66 citing34 Taxmann.com 300 · 2013 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
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 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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Shri. G Maria Augustin, Chennai vs ITO Non Corporate Ward 13 (5), ChennaiChennai11 Apr 2022Allowed
Also relies on DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
The Tribunal held that the reason for reopening, 'difference in sundry creditors balance', was vague and did not establish a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer's subsequent attemp...
- Surendra Kumar Jain, New Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle 32, New DelhiDelhi4 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
The Tribunal held that while a protective assessment can be made to safeguard revenue interest when there is doubt about the income's recipient, such a basis must be supported by a substantive addition. In this case, no ...
- Lokesh Kumar Srivastava, Greater Noida vs DCIT, Central Circle-31, DelhiDelhi30 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
The Tribunal held that protective additions cannot be made under Section 147/148 proceedings solely to protect the Revenue's interest. Referring to a precedent, the Tribunal quashed the impugned protective additions.
- Nellikkote Kunhipari Mohammedali, Kozhikode vs ACIT Circle-1(1), KozhikodeCochin15 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
The Tribunal ruled that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year were invalid. The AO's recorded reasons for reopening did not allege that the assessee failed ...
- Sreevalsam Hotels and Resorts Private Ltd… vs ACIT, Central Circle, KollamCochin9 Jun 2025Allowed
Also relies on DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 cannot be initiated for making a protective assessment or addition. The initiation of reassessment proceedings was quashed as bad in law.
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
