Lalji Haridas v. ITO

43 ITR 387Supreme Court of India1961#367 most cited

What is Lalji Haridas v. ITO authority for?

When an assessing authority is uncertain about the true ownership of funds or in whose hands income should be assessed, it can frame a protective assessment to safeguard the Revenue's interest. Such protective assessments remain valid until the substantive assessment is finalized.

238

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lalji Haridas v. ITO · protective assessment · substantive assessment · uncertainty of ownership · doubt as to assessee · safeguarding revenue · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 153C · Section 68 · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132 Section 147 Section 148 Section 68 Section 132(4)Section 153C Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 12ab(4)(ii)section 12aa(1)(b)(ii)substantive assessment protective assessment commercial substance section 10(22)section 12aa(1)(b)section 12aa(1)section 10(26)section 61 section 159 section 13(1)(d)

Judgments citing Lalji Haridas v. ITO

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5137/MUM/2024[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

…. CIT(A) is of use that the assessment done is protective in nature. 4 Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961-43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 5. Whether on facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AO by the way of calling remand report, if…

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5136/MUM/2024[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT(A) is of view that the assessment done is protective in nature. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961 43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AD by the way of calling remand report, if…

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5134/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT(A) is of view that the assessment done is protective in nature. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961 43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AD by the way of calling remand report, if…

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5132/MUM/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT(A) is of view that the assessment done is protective in nature. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961 43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AD by the way of calling remand report, if…

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5131/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT(A) is of view that the assessment done is protective in nature. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961 43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AD by the way of calling remand report, if…

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5129/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT(A) is of view that the assessment done is protective in nature. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961 43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AD by the way of calling remand report, if…

DCIT 41 1 1, Mumbai vs. Satya Kim Yashpal, Mumbai

ITA 5120/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: returning to India in the year 2001. JSY expired on 28/06/2017.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule; Shri Bhangepatil

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT(A) is of view that the assessment done is protective in nature. 3. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Id. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO, Supreme Court, 1961 43 ITR 387 SC wherein the facts and circumstances have no resemblance with the instant case. 4. Whether in facts and circumstances of this case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by already presuming that the deposits pertains to the father of the Assessee, without providing a chance to AD by the way of calling remand report, if…

Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam vs. ACIT, Circle, Kollam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Navdeep Educational Trust 38/109, Navdeep Mundakkal East 691001 Acit Vs. Kollam Circle Kerala Kollam Pan No : Aabtn0952H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)/ Nfac Dated 26.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061508122(1) For The Ay 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…y other person. Further, ld. A.R. of the assessee submitted that there can be no protective addition without there being substantive addition in any other’s hand by relying the judgement of Apex court in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. Income Tax Officer (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC). Further, without prejudice to the above, ld. A.R. submitted that as the substantive addition which enables the AO to make a protective addition was dropped by holding that the sources from which funds were introduced by him by credit to his current account in the books of the assessee were genuine and there is no income escapement, there can…

Times Internet Limited (Representative Assessee of Willow Tv International Ltd), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Times Internet Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Representative Assessee Of New Delhi Willow Tv International Ltd.), Express Building, 9-10 Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aabct1559M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Shaurya, Ca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 163Section 246

…e us. The learned lower authorities have admittedly assessed the assessee on “protective” basis qua amount in question of Rs. 20,36,61,760/- without framing any substantive assessments thereof in any taxpayer’s case. We thus quote Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC) that their lordships have settled the issue long-back that such a “protective” assessment arises in case a doubt comes in the Assessing Officer’s mind as to in whose hands a particular income is to be taxed and not otherwise. Case law DHFL Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO (2013) 34 taxmann.com 300 (Bom) further holds that such a reopening for the…

Siemens Mobility Gmbh, Germany vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(International Tax), 4(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

…estion of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings had come up for consideration before the Tribunal. 24. The Tribunal firstly explained the concept of Protective assessment, which was judicially recognized in the case of Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where it appears to the income-tax authorities that certain income has been received doing the relevant assessment year; but it is not clear who has received that income and prima facie, it appears that income may have been received either by the A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant inco…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Mulliambal Rathnasamy Pitchakannu Eraavanan, Chennai

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1810/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Arvind E & Mrs. Baskaravalli Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mrp Investigation Building, Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Chennai. Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aaape5554D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised By The Appellant – Revenue. He Submits That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate

Section 159Section 2

…er, now it is well-settled by judicial precedent that in order to protect the interest of the revenue, protective assessment can be made. The concept of protective assessment', was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387, while dealing with this issue, their Lordships have observed as follows: “................In cases where it appears to the IT authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant assessment year but it is not clear who has received that income and prima facie it appears that the income may have been received either by A or B or b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata vs. Ritu Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2223/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ective assessment but once a substantive assessment has been made, the protective assessment cannot survive in the appeal. The relevant extract from the order is as under: 7. Similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 , where their Lordships observed as under: "... If in the proceedings taken against Lalji it is finally decided that it is Lalji who is responsible to pay tax for the income in question it may not become necessary to make any order against Chhotalal. If, however, in the said proceedings Lalji is not held to be liable to pay tax or it is found that…

Income Tax Officer, Morena vs. Naresh Singh, Morena

ITA 435/AGR/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 147Section 69A

…e Revenue side to this effect. More so, the learned CIT(Appeals) itself has admitted in para 5.6 that there is no substantive addition made in any other assessee’s hands. That being the case we quote age old landmark decision in Lalji Haridas vs. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC) that a “protective” addition is applicable only when there arises a doubt in the mind(s) of the Assessing Officer as to in whose hands a particular income has to be assessed. We reiterate that there is no such doubt expressed or any substantive addition was made by the Assessing Officer before making protective addition. We further quote DH…

Naresh Singh, Morena vs. ITO Ward-1, Morena

ITA 390/AGR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 147Section 69A

…e Revenue side to this effect. More so, the learned CIT(Appeals) itself has admitted in para 5.6 that there is no substantive addition made in any other assessee’s hands. That being the case we quote age old landmark decision in Lalji Haridas vs. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC) that a “protective” addition is applicable only when there arises a doubt in the mind(s) of the Assessing Officer as to in whose hands a particular income has to be assessed. We reiterate that there is no such doubt expressed or any substantive addition was made by the Assessing Officer before making protective addition. We further quote DH…

Sh. Ram Baboo Agarwal, Mathura vs. ITO.-3(2), Mathura

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 176/AGR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalshri Ram Baboo Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer, 18, Bankhandi Mahadev, Ward-3(2), Aaykar Vrindavan, Mathura Bhawan, Mathura "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Atbpb3350Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anurag Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shailener Shrivastava, Sr. DR

…ion of Rs.25 lacs which was made on “protective” basis in assessment and converted to a substantive one in the lower appellate proceedings. 3. We deem it appropriate first of all to quote hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC) settling the law long back that a “protective” assessment arises in case the department comes across a situation wherein it is not clear as to in whose hands the income in question has to be assessed. Learned counsel further seeks to highlight the fact that the Assessing Officer had framed a “regular” assessment in assessee’s wife Smt. Madhu’…

Meera Agarwal, Gwalior vs. ACIT-1, Gwalior

ITA 174/AGR/2024[A.Y 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, “DB” AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA Nos.172, 173 & 174/Agr/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2012-13 Vs. ACIT-1, Smt. Meera Agarwal, Sindh Vihar Colony, Gwalior Nadi Gate, Gwalior PAN :ABXPA1749G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 05.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.02.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s three appeals 172, 173 & 174/Agr/2024 for assessment years 2006-07,…

Meera Agarwal, Gwalior vs. ACIT-1, Gwalior

ITA 173/AGR/2024[A.Y 2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, “DB” AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA Nos.172, 173 & 174/Agr/2024 Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2012-13 Vs. ACIT-1, Smt. Meera Agarwal, Sindh Vihar Colony, Gwalior Nadi Gate, Gwalior PAN :ABXPA1749G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 05.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.02.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s three appeals 172, 173 & 174/Agr/2024 for assessment years 2006-07,…

Ramesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 56(6), New Delhi

ITA 3951/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

…ing the case, learned CIT-DR vehemently supports all the impugned assessments on legality as well as on merits wherein both the lower authorities have made protective additions under various heads involving varying sums. He quotes Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC) to buttress the point that as and when there arises the doubt in the learned assessing authority’s mind as to in whose hands a particular head of income is to be assessed, it could indeed frame such a “protective” assessment to safeguard the Revenue’s interest. 5. Learned counsel representing assessee on the other hand seeks to raise various…

Netenrich Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 870/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G. (Accountant Member), SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial Member)

…sh is belongs to the appellant Society or the individuals. In our considered view, it is a well-established principle of law by the various judicial pronouncements, including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO[1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC), that in order to make substantive and protective assessments there should be uncertainty of ownership of the funds as well as that such uncertainty must be safeguarded to prevent actual loss to the revenue. In the present case, going by the assessment made by the A.O. towards cash found during the course of search in the hands of individuals…

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3, Jaipur, Jpr

In the result, Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is also allowed and order declared to be bad in law, as the same violated the Principle of Natural Justice

ITA 420/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyaldinesh Kumar Chaurasia, M/S. Mahendra Gargieya & Associates, 537-539, Gargieya’S 5Th Floor, Mahima Trinity, Near Jyoti Rao Phule College, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur – 302 019. Pan No.: Abapc 0810D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur – 302 005. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…ause it is an assessment which is made 'ex abundanti cautela' where the department has a “doubt as to the person who is or will be deemed to be in receipt of the income". A decision of Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in case of Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387, is a foundation laid by way of judicial recognition on the point where in the Apex Court considered the question where it appeared to the income tax authorities that certain income had been received during the relevant assessment year, but it was not clear as to who had received that income and prima facie it appeared that the income might have b…