← All Phrases

“protective assessment”

MiscellaneousAssessmentAssessment441 judgments

The decision most relied on for protective assessment is Lalji Haridas v. ITO (43 ITR 387), cited in 238 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on protective assessment

Lalji Haridas v. ITO
43 ITR 387 · 1961 · Supreme Court
238
citing judgments

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.

CIT, Gujarat II v. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi
140 ITR 517 · 1983 · High Court
88
citing judgments

Protective assessments should not be deleted or disposed of by lower authorities, but rather allowed to remain in effect until the related substantive assessment proceedings attain finality before the High Court or Supreme Court.

DHFL Venture Capital Fund v. ITO
358 ITR 471 · 2013 · High Court
66
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated solely for the purpose of making a protective addition. Such proceedings are not valid in the eyes of law.

Bhailal Manilal Patel v. CIT
49 Taxmann.com 539 · 2014 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed based on a protective assessment order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is impermissible without a substantive assessment order that finally adds income to the assessee's hands.

Peter Vaz v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bangalore
128 Taxmann.com 180 · 2021 · High Court
34
citing judgments

An assessee can raise an objection regarding the validity of the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction for reopening a concluded assessment even if the issue was not raised before the CIT(Appeals), by invoking Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. This is permissible if the issue is ancillary to the main issue and does not require additional evidence.

(CIT v. Cochin Co. Pvt. Ltd.
104 ITR 655 · 1976 · High Court
32
citing judgments

A protective assessment is permissible when the assessing officer has doubt regarding who is in receipt of income, but a recovery based on a protective assessment is not allowed. If an assessment is intended to be protective, it must be clearly stated as such.

CIT v. Super Steel (Sales) Co.
178 ITR 451 · 1989 · High Court
28
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income cannot be levied when the assessment was made on a protective basis, especially if the income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was uncertain who had concealed the income.

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT
39 SOT 514 · 2010 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

A protective assessment cannot be made without a prior substantive assessment.

Judgments citing protective assessment

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 573/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

taxmann.com 539 (Guj) where the Hon’ble Court held that penalty could not be initiated where the assessment order is a protective assessment. It was held that there can be protective assessment but there cannot be protective penalty. Before any penalty can be levied, the income has to be assessed

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 572/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

taxmann.com 539 (Guj) where the Hon’ble Court held that penalty could not be initiated where the assessment order is a protective assessment. It was held that there can be protective assessment but there cannot be protective penalty. Before any penalty can be levied, the income has to be assessed

Manish Banshilal Jariwala, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2)(3), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 571/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.571 To 573/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2009-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.574 & 575/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Hybrid Hearing) Manish Banshilal Jariwala Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(3), 4/1710, Begumpura, Vs. Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Nawabwadi, Main Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395 001 395 003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ancpj 6207 F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271B

taxmann.com 539 (Guj) where the Hon’ble Court held that penalty could not be initiated where the assessment order is a protective assessment. It was held that there can be protective assessment but there cannot be protective penalty. Before any penalty can be levied, the income has to be assessed

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

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 ... DHFL Venture Capital Fund Vs. ITO (2013) 34 taxmann.com 300 (Bom) further holds that such a reopening for the purpose of making a “protective” assessment is not sustainable in law. We thus conclude that the impugned reopening for the purpose of making protective assessment in question has to be quashed

Vibhu Prakash Bansal, Bijnor vs. DCIT Central, Moradabad

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed in the aforesaid

ITA 2302/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka .Y R.: 2015-16 Vibhu Prakash Bansal (Huf), Vs. Dcit (Central), Sarrafa Bazaar, Dhampur, Moradabad Aayaka Bhawan, Civil Uttar Pradesh -246761 (Pan: Aabhv3649H) Lines, Moradabad Uttar Pradesh-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 44ASection 69

granted. Now more particularly in the present set o f facts where substantive additions were made in the hands o f respondent and protective assessment were made in the hands o f its Director respondent, had the competent authority been even aware o f the fact o f the protective

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moderate Credit Corporation Pvt. Ltd., West Bengal

ITA 6223/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147

initiated proceedings under section 148 of the Act in these cases. Consequential reopened assessments were completed taxing accommodation entries on substantive basis as against protective assessments under section 153C of the Act. Aggrieved, the above-mentioned assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A) and succeeded on quantum additions

Akesh Sangemermer(P) Ltd, Industrial Area vs. ITO Ward 1 Kishangarh, City Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1311/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

Mere statement of the third party that property was sold to the assensee for a higher amount than shown, no protective assessment could be made in the case of the assessee. The alleged transactions mentioned in the seized diary of a third party were not handwritten by the appellant

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

Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the relevant case. Hence, the demand arising from off-shore supplies in case of the assessee are only protectively assessed by this Order. However, in any eventuality, if it is held in any proceedings that taxability do not arise in the case of the referred ... submitted that no assessment in the hands of AOP on substantive basis is done by the Revenue and therefore the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee without substantive assessment cannot be done. On merits the ld. AR submitted that the supply of equipments happened outside India

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

Thangarajan Nadar who is the owner of the property and the person who received the sale consideration. 6.12 It may be appreciated that a Protective assessment is a precautionary assessment and there exists no specific provision in the Act for the purpose of making a protective assessment. However ... 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

DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Punjab Wool Traders, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 960/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 960/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, M/S Punjab Wool Traders, बनाम Central Circle-1, 6515/14, Haibowal, Ludhiana Jassian Road, Vs. Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aanfp9513G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 23.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153C

Ludhiana 10 Assessing Officer are based on various material / statements found / recorded during the search operation. 9. However, we find that it is a protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 2 crores. The substantive addition for the same amount has already been made in the case

DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Gurdev Wool & Fibers, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 956/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 956/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, M/S Gurdev Wool & Fibers, बनाम Central Circle-1, 6515/14, Haibowal, Ludhiana Jassian Road, Vs. Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aalfg2972Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153C

Ludhiana 10 Assessing Officer are based on various material / statements found / recorded during the search operation. 9. However, we find that it is a protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 2 crores. The substantive addition for the same amount has already been made in the case

DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Karan Sales Corporation, Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed

ITA 952/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153C

Assessing Officer are based on various material / statements found / recorded during the search operation. 9. However, we find that it is a protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.2 crores. The substantive addition for the same amount has already been made in the case of M/s ARK Imports

Sri Anujit Das, Amarpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the ITAT through the following grounds:

Section 131Section 132ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 153DSection 156Section 250Section 69A

cheques of Rs. 4,53,000/- found in his possession were also on behalf of Mr. Gautam Roy. Thereafter, the Ld. AO made a protective assessment by treating the amount of Rs. 8,84,200/- under Section 69A of the Act. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached ... Gautam Roy, but has also been assessed in his hands. After this verification, the Ld. AO is directed to delete the amount added in protective assessment, in case the impugned amount has been duly considered in the hands of Mr. Gautam Roy. We direct accordingly. I.T.A. No. 36/GTY/2024 Sri Anujit

Siddha Manikkam Ramesh, Salem vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Salem

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

ITA 546/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 546/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Siddha Manikkam Ramesh, Income Tax Officer, 237, Main Road, Shevapet, Vs. Ward-1(2), Salem-636 002. Salem. Pan: Agdpr-1799-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. P.M.Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Cit(A)/Nfac’S Order Dated 17.01.2024, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2017-18. 2. When The Case Was Taken Up For Hearing To-Day, The Assessee’S Counsel Has Sought For Adjournment Of The Case By Stating That Protective Assessment In The Assessee Of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan Is Pending Before The Cit(A). We Find From The Order Sheet Entry For Similar Reasons This Case Has Been Adjourned On Several Dates. The Assessee Has Placed On Record A Paper Book Comprising Of 21 Pages Enclosing Therein Hearing Notices Issued By Cit(A) In The Case Of One Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan For The Relevant Assessment Year, Order Of Assessment Passed In The Case Of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, Sworn Statement Recorded From Both The Assessee & Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan U/S.131 Of The Act On 03.12.2019 Etc.

For Appellant: Mr. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 131Section 250

When the case was taken up for hearing to-day, the assessee’s counsel has sought for adjournment of the case by stating that protective assessment in the assessee of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan is pending before the CIT(A). We find from the order sheet entry for similar reasons this case ... person actually carrying on business of edible oil trading and the assessee is only assisting him. Under normal circumstances, both substantial assessment and protective assessment should be heard together and not independent of each other. 4. As mentioned earlier, Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, during the course of assessment proceedings in a statement

Jagdish Sharma (HUF), Jahanabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-5, Patna

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 203/PAT/2023[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2025AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.198 & 203/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 1999-00 Jagdish Sharma (Huf).…………………………………………..………….……Appellant Korra, Ghoshi, Janhanabad, Bihar-804406. [Pan: Aaihs5678G] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5, Patna……..….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2025 Order Per Bench: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 1996-97 & 1999-00. Since, The Issues Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Are Delays Of 26 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Assessee Submitted Separate Applications For Condonation Of Such Delays Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delays In Filing Both The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

Section 250

Taxman 377 (MP), the Hon’ble High Court observed that once the substantive assessment has been made, the protective assessment cannot survive in appeal. Since, in the instant case, the protective assessment was made in the hands of the HUF, while substantive assessment was made in the hands of actual ... income earner as individual capacity, therefore, the protective assessment becomes infructuous and it is liable to be dismissed. I.T.A. Nos.198 & 203/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 1999-00 Jagdish Sharma (HUF) 4. In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed. Kolkata, the 18th February, 2025. [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा

Jagdish Sharma (HUF), Jahanabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-5, Patna

In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed

ITA 198/PAT/2023[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2025AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. Nos.198 & 203/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 1999-00 Jagdish Sharma (Huf).…………………………………………..………….……Appellant Korra, Ghoshi, Janhanabad, Bihar-804406. [Pan: Aaihs5678G] Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5, Patna……..….….. ……………….........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri D. V. Pathy, Sr. Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit - Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 18, 2025 Order Per Bench: Both The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Separate Orders Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 1996-97 & 1999-00. Since, The Issues Are Common & Relate To The Same Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Are Delays Of 26 Days In Filing Both The Present Appeals. The Assessee Submitted Separate Applications For Condonation Of Such Delays Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Applications, We Find Reasonable Cause. We, Therefore, Condone The Delays In Filing Both The Appeals & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals.

Section 250

Taxman 377 (MP), the Hon’ble High Court observed that once the substantive assessment has been made, the protective assessment cannot survive in appeal. Since, in the instant case, the protective assessment was made in the hands of the HUF, while substantive assessment was made in the hands of actual ... income earner as individual capacity, therefore, the protective assessment becomes infructuous and it is liable to be dismissed. I.T.A. Nos.198 & 203/Pat/2023 Assessment Years: 1996-97 & 1999-00 Jagdish Sharma (HUF) 4. In the result, both the captioned appeals are dismissed. Kolkata, the 18th February, 2025. [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] लेखा

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

case of Dayabai v. Commissioner of Income- tax [1985] 23 Taxman 377 (MP) that while the Ld. AO may be justified in making a protective assessment but once a substantive assessment has been made, the protective assessment cannot survive in the appeal. The relevant extract from the order ... consider similar questions in the case reported in Smt. Hemlata Agarwal v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 428 . 8. It is, therefore, clear that the protective assessment made against Smt. Dayabai only to meet a situation that in case the assessment of Vinit Talkies is not made, this assessment could become

Jagdish Sharma, Jahanabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-5, Patna

Appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 218/PAT/2023[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250

200/Pat/2023 1997-98 9 201/Pat/2023 1998-99 10 218/Pat/2023 2001-02 11 219/Pat/2023 2002-03 3.1 While in the following appeals, protective assessments were made in the case of HUF of the assessee namely Jagdish Sharma (HUF): Sl. No. ITA No. Assessment year I.T.A. Nos.186 ... appeals as mentioned in table 1 of this order before the competent authority, therefore, these appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF in the appeals as mentioned in table 2 of this order are rendered redundant

Jagdish Sharma (HUF), Jahanabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-5, Patna

Appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 205/PAT/2023[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250

200/Pat/2023 1997-98 9 201/Pat/2023 1998-99 10 218/Pat/2023 2001-02 11 219/Pat/2023 2002-03 3.1 While in the following appeals, protective assessments were made in the case of HUF of the assessee namely Jagdish Sharma (HUF): Sl. No. ITA No. Assessment year I.T.A. Nos.186 ... appeals as mentioned in table 1 of this order before the competent authority, therefore, these appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF in the appeals as mentioned in table 2 of this order are rendered redundant

Jagdish Sharma (HUF), Jahanabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-5, Patna

Appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 204/PAT/2023[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250

200/Pat/2023 1997-98 9 201/Pat/2023 1998-99 10 218/Pat/2023 2001-02 11 219/Pat/2023 2002-03 3.1 While in the following appeals, protective assessments were made in the case of HUF of the assessee namely Jagdish Sharma (HUF): Sl. No. ITA No. Assessment year I.T.A. Nos.186 ... appeals as mentioned in table 1 of this order before the competent authority, therefore, these appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the protective assessments made in the hands of the HUF in the appeals as mentioned in table 2 of this order are rendered redundant