← 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

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

Appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 190/PAT/2023[1992-93]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 1992-93

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 189/PAT/2023[1991-92]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 1991-92

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, Jahanabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-5, Patna

Appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 187/PAT/2023[1990-91]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 1990-91

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, Jahanabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-5, Patna

Appeals are treated as dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 186/PAT/2023[1989-90]Status: HeardITAT Patna12 Feb 2025AY 1989-90

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

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 57/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Bhaskara Raju in Appeal No ITANo. CIT(A)- VI 1/776/Hyd/CC/8/10-11 and doted 28.03.1014. Sl.No. Name Appeal No. Remarks Shri B. Ramalinga Raju Protective assessments 1 761/10-11 were mode in the hands of Smt B. Nandini Raju 2 770/10-11 these individuals on the Shri B. Rama Raju 3 764/10-11 issue ... Rajeswari Devi ITANo.CIT(A)-VII/0767/ 2010-ll/ CC-8 3.0 The operative part of the above orders at para 8(H) reads as The protective assessments made in the hands of Sri B Ramalinga Raju and seven others now become substantive. A remand report is being separately called for from

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. B.Ramalinga Raju, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/HYD/2020[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

Bhaskara Raju in Appeal No ITANo. CIT(A)- VI 1/776/Hyd/CC/8/10-11 and doted 28.03.1014. Sl.No. Name Appeal No. Remarks Shri B. Ramalinga Raju Protective assessments 1 761/10-11 were mode in the hands of Smt B. Nandini Raju 2 770/10-11 these individuals on the Shri B. Rama Raju 3 764/10-11 issue ... Rajeswari Devi ITANo.CIT(A)-VII/0767/ 2010-ll/ CC-8 3.0 The operative part of the above orders at para 8(H) reads as The protective assessments made in the hands of Sri B Ramalinga Raju and seven others now become substantive. A remand report is being separately called for from

Shri Ajay Agrawal, Agra vs. ACIT Central Circle, Agra

ITA 311/AGR/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 153A

found during the search conducted on the appellant group. 2. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in making protective assessment on the appellant on account of investment of Rs.9,50,000/- as unexplained investment in FDR. 3. That the authorities below have erred ... found during the search conducted on the appellant group. 2. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in making protective assessment on the appellant on account of investment of Rs.19,76,153/- as unexplained investment in FDR. 3. That the authorities below have erred

Shri Alok Agrawal, Mainpuri vs. ACIT, Agra

ITA 227/AGR/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra05 Feb 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Sh. Deependra Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT-DR
Section 153A

found during the search conducted on the appellant group. 2. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in making protective assessment on the appellant on account of investment of Rs.9,50,000/- as unexplained investment in FDR. 3. That the authorities below have erred ... found during the search conducted on the appellant group. 2. That the authorities below have erred in law and on facts in making protective assessment on the appellant on account of investment of Rs.19,76,153/- as unexplained investment in FDR. 3. That the authorities below have erred

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Page 35 of 155 (I) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment of Rs. 329,75,00,000/- made in AY 2015-16 without considering the fact that the receipts are related to Lok Sabha Elections ... genuineness of these receipts. (III) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment considering it as confirmed on the substantive addition made for the AY 2013-14. (IV) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Queens Road, Bengaluru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1290/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

1292/Bang/2024 Page 35 of 155 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Id. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment of Rs. 329,75,00,000/- made in AY 2015-16 without considering the fact that the receipts are related to Lok Sabha Elections ... creditworthiness and genuineness of these receipts. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment considering it as confirmed on the substantive addition made for the AY 2013-14. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1024/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

1292/Bang/2024 Page 35 of 155 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Id. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment of Rs. 329,75,00,000/- made in AY 2015-16 without considering the fact that the receipts are related to Lok Sabha Elections ... creditworthiness and genuineness of these receipts. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment considering it as confirmed on the substantive addition made for the AY 2013-14. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1023/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

1292/Bang/2024 Page 35 of 155 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Id. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment of Rs. 329,75,00,000/- made in AY 2015-16 without considering the fact that the receipts are related to Lok Sabha Elections ... creditworthiness and genuineness of these receipts. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment considering it as confirmed on the substantive addition made for the AY 2013-14. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1022/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Assessment Year 2015-16 (I) Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment of Rs.329,75,00,000/- made in AY 2015-16 without considering the fact that the receipts are related to Lok Sabha Elections ... genuineness of these receipts. (III) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment considering it as confirmed on the substantive addition made for the AY 2013-14. (IV) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Shri. Kempareddy Govindraj, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to

ITA 1021/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: ITA Nos.1021 to 1024/Bang/2024
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

1292/Bang/2024 Page 35 of 155 Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Id. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment of Rs. 329,75,00,000/- made in AY 2015-16 without considering the fact that the receipts are related to Lok Sabha Elections ... creditworthiness and genuineness of these receipts. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective assessment considering it as confirmed on the substantive addition made for the AY 2013-14. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

Lila Tejpal Jain, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 5927/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

income is taxed fully in the hands of both the person. When income is known and who have earned it is also known how protective assessment can be made? When it is a joint property income should be taxed in its proportion of share in such property or fully ... hands of both the person. 6 Ms. Lila Tejpal Jain When income is known and who have earned it is also known how protective assessment can be made? When it is a joint property income should be taxed in its proportion of share in such property or fully in hands

Prem Singh Saluja, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Raigarh

ITA 428/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 428/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 69

held that Shri Bhanupratap Singh S/o Shri Gajendra Singh is not the real owner but only benamidar of Shri Premsingh Saluja and therefore, a protective assessment is being made in the case of Shri Bhanupratap Singh by ITO, Janjgir-Champa (CG), and substantive assessment is being framed in the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Sundaram Jaganathan, Perambalur

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2014/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2014/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Shri Sundaram Jaganathan, The Acit, Central Circle-2, New No.34A, Va.U.C. Street, Trichy. Vellalar Street, Perambalur-621 212. [Pan: Ancpj-8392-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms.R.Anita,Addl.CITFor Respondent: Mr.P.M.Kathir, Advocate

57/Chny/2024) for AY 2012-13 to 2018-19. Hence, according to the Ld.DR, in the interest of justice and fair play, since protective assessment has been made in the hands of the present assessee Mr.Sundaram Jeganathan, by the AO, which has been deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) passing the impugned ... records, we note that substantive addition was made by the AO in the hands of M/s.Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable Educational Trust and it was protectively assessed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal in the case of M/s.Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Charitable Educational Trust had restored the assessment back to the file

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3851/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Roysony India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 22 (2), A – 18, Mohan Cooperative Indl. Area, New Delhi. Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044. (Pan :Aabcs1571Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appealpreferred By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.07.2024Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144Bof The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Assessment Year 2020- 21Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

Development functions ("MMDF") based on Bright Line Test ("BLT") approach In law and facts of present case: 4 15. Impugned order errs in retaining protective assessment based on BLT Contrary to Hon'ble jurisdiction High Court decision. Further such adjustment is based on incorrect presumptions and ignores relevant factors laid

Shri Pankajkumar Odhhavjibhai Lumbhani, Rajkot vs. The A.C.I.T Central Circle-2, Rajkot

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

ITA 234/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.234/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Pankajkumar Odhavjibhai Vs. The Acit Lumbhani Central Circle – 2, Rajkot 24, Prahlad Plot, Digvijay Road, Rajkot, Gujarat 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpl3740M (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT.DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 44A

r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax. Penalty is also proposed to be initiated u/s271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.We note that protective assessment is made when there is uncertainty about who the real owner of the income. The protective assessment is done to safeguard the interest

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpay Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 4362/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(a)Section 250Section 250(6)

Ward-2 (ITA No. 142/2016) b. ACIT vs. Biirat Chandra Dagara (ITAT, Cuttack). Which held that in the absence of a substantive assessment protective assessment cannot survive.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income dated 26.09.2014 declaring total income