CIT v. Durgawati

234 ITR 249High Court1998#9992 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 153C Section 69 Section 132(1)Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 132 Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

protective assessment substantive assessment satisfaction note unexplained investment salary section 153c search and seizure reassessment proceedings section 153 section 139 section 132 section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Durgawati

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY RAJASEHAR, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 69

…otective assessment is that in case substantive addition is made in the hands of other person and in case assessment fails, Department must get the tax from the person in whose hands the protective assessment is made. [refer- CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Devi [1995] 212 ITR 445 (Raj.)] 6.3.20 Also, an assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment and, thus, substantive assessment has to precede protective assessment. [refer- Suresh K. Jajoo v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.)]. 6.3.21 It is brought on record; the AO has not made any substantive addition in respect of the relevan…

PAWAN MECHU,CHIRAWA vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

ITA 74/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

…tective assessment is permissible, it not open to the appellate authorities to make a protective order. Law does not permit assessment of the same income successively in different hands. In this regard, reference may be made to decisions in CIT vs. Durgawati, 234 ITR 249; CIT vs. Saraswati Devi 212 ITR 445; Jagannath Bawri v CIT, 234 ITR 664. This is not a case where there was doubt as to which of the two persons was liable to be assessed. Learned CIT(A) was to arrive at a definite conclusion as to which of the two assessment orders was to be upheld. In the given situation, having regard to the provisions of sect…

PAWAN MECHU,JHUNJHUNU vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

ITA 1458/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 153A

…otective basis in the hands of appellant. Further, in view of the various judicial pronouncements, the appellate authority cannot sustain protective addition. Such decisions are as under: (i). Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Durgawati Singh (1988) 234 ITR 249. The operative part of the decision is as under:- 43 IT(SS) No.30 & 31/Ind/2023 ITA (SS) No.305/Ind/2023 Shailendra Sharma It is settled that when there is a doubt as to which person amongst the two was liable to be assessed, parallel proceedings may be taken against both and alternative assessments may also be framed. It is also equally true t…

DEV DARSHAN DESIGNS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 34/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.34/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dev Darshan Designs Pvt. Ltd.……….......................…...……………....Appellant P-40, 1St Floor, Kajinajrul Islam Avenue, Kolkata-700157. [Pan: Aadcd1890P] Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata….……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 09, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.2,67,60,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Protective Basis In Respect Of The Loan Amount Received By The Assessee From One Of Its Director & His Relatives. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…axes, the protective assessment is liable to be deleted since the same would tantamount to making double addition. Reference in this connection is invited to the judgement of  Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v Smt Durgawanti Singh reported in 234 ITR 249 which held as under: "It is settled law that when there is a doubt as to which person amongst the two was liable to be assessed, parallel proceedings may be taken against both and alternative assessments may also be framed. It is also equally true that while a protective is permissible, it is not open to the income tax appellate authorities under…

SRI.JOHN MATHEW N,ALAPPUZHA vs. THE ITO, WD-2, ALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 81/COCH/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Feb 2023AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri John Mathew N. The Income Tax Officer Neroth House Ward - 2, Alleppey Vs. No. 1, Jubilee Road Alappuzha [Pan: Acupm8885D] Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair & Shri P.K. Biju, Advocates Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Appeal By The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Reassessment Under Section 147 Read With Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 20.11.2007 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2001-02, Since Upheld In First Appeal Vide Order Dated 24.01.2018 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kottayam (‘Cit(A)’ For Short). 2.1 At The Outset, Shri Anil D. Nair, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee-Appellant, Would Submit That The Basis Of The Assessee’S Challenge Is Two-Fold: (A) Non-Supply Of The Reasons Recorded; & (B) True & Full Disclosure Of All Material Facts Relating To The Income Escaping Assessment By The Assessee Per His Return Of Income.

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair &For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 230ASection 234B

…would be destructive of the concept and purpose of a protective assessment, a travesty of justice and, in fact, against the law thereon (Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC); Banyan & Berry v. CIT [1996] 222 ITR 831 (Guj); CIT v. Durgawati Singh [1998] 234 ITR 249 (All)). That the assessment was substantively made in the hands of the AOP is another matter and of little consequence. Why, in the facts of the case, the status, individual or AOP, in which the assessed income may finally survive, shall stand to be determined in the appellate proceedings in the assessee’s own case, and not in another; the assess…

NARENDRA SHARMA,DHOLPUR vs. PR.CIT, ALWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 282/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 282/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Cuke Shri Narendra Sharma, P.C.I.T. 2 Opp. Midway, Gt Road, Vs. Alwar. Dholpur. Pan No.: Afipn 1992 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80C

…ii. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2017) 63 ITR(Trib.) 355/ 51 CCH 473 (Del.) (Trib.) 6. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the PCIT and also relied on the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Smt. Saraswati Devi (1995) 212 ITR 445 (Raj) (ii) Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd. Vs ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kozhikode (2019) 111 Taxmann.com 189 (Cochin-Trib) 6 ITA 282/JP/2020_ Shri Narendra Sharma Vs PCIT 7. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the autho…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTA & CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 730/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

…t assessee’s hands. Following case laws were quoted to support the concept of liability being limited to one entity in the protective vs. substantive assessment. 1. Banyan and Berry Vs. C.I.T. (1996) 222 ITR 831 (GUJ) 2. C.I.T. vs. Smt. Durgawati Singh (1998) 234 ITR 249 (ALL) 3. Ram Lal Ganpat Rai vs. C.I.T. (1978) 462 (BOM) 4. CWT v. Begum Zahoor Qasim (2001) 248 ITR 482(Del.) 6.6.1 The Ld. AR also highlighted the issue of tax travels with income relying on rule 37BA for the credit of the tax paid on such income i.e. the credit should be given to the person in whose hands the income finally gets taxed and not…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. GUPTA & CO. PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the Revenue’s Appeals stand dismissed and both the Assessee’s Cross Objections stand partly allowed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 729/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(3)Section 245D(4)Section 254Section 254C(3)

NARESH JAGDISHRAI GOYAL,MUMBAI vs. ITO(IT) RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘बी’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJITSINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.634/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2006-2007) Naresh Jagdishrai Goyal, 72, Vs. ITO(International Jupiter Apartments, Anstey Taxation), Range-3(1), Road, Off. Altamount Road, Scindia House, Ballard Mumbai-400026 Estate, Mumbai-400038 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACPG 9641 B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sumit K…

Y.P. PUNJ FAMILY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 15(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7614/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amit Shukla

For Respondent: Shri A K Kardam

Section 271(1)(c)Section 64

…ed following decision in support of the contention no penalty can be levied on protective basis :- CIT v Super Steel (Sales) Co. 178 ITR 451(Cal) Metal Stores vs CIT 186 ITR 612(Gau) ITO vs Miss Vasudha Bajoria 40 ITD 414(ITAT-Kol) CIT v Smt. Durgawati Singh 234 ITR 249(All) Whereas, the Ld. DR has strongly relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 4. On the perusal of the impugned order and facts and materials on record, we find that both the authorities have discussed in detail, the colourable device but failed to understand that, once an income has already been offered and assessed on 3 Y P Punj Family Trust sub…