INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. SANJAY THAKUR, GHAZIABAD

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

Learned CIT-DR vehemently argues in light of the Revenue’s pleadings that the CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in deleting protective addition of unexplained cash & 1778/Del/2025 Sanjay Thakur credits amounting to Rs.16,60,36,538/- in assessment order dated 16.12.2016; and, therefore, the same deserves to be revived herein. We note in this factual backdrop that what all the Revenue endeavour herein is to get a protective addition restored wherein there is no indication in the assessment order itself as in whose hands, the Assessing Officer had made the corresponding substantive addition. We deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop to quote Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC), that a protective addition gets attracted only when there arises a doubt in the Assessing Officer’s minds as to in whose hands, a particular item of income deserves to be assessed and not otherwise. This in indeed coupled with the fact that the hon’ble Bombay high court in DHFL Venture Capital Fund vs. ITO (2013) 34 taxmann.com 300 (Bom.) has further settled the issue that section 148/147 proceedings could not even be initiated for the purpose of making a protective addition. We thus reject the Revenue’s instant sole substantive ground as well as both these appeals since involving identical set of facts and addition(s) in very terms.