← 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

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)

Section 12A

consider that the Assessing Officer (AO) had already made a "protective addition" of the alleged excess fee in the hands of individual trustees. Protective assessments are only applicable where the ownership of income is uncertain. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the PCIT (Central) to Initiate cancellation proceedings against the society ... educational institutions. Further, the Assessing Officer completed assessment by treating the receipts as "Protective" in the hands of individual trustee and that, the protective assessments are only applicable where the ownership of income is uncertain. Therefore, it was inappropriate for the PCIT (Central) to initiate cancellation proceedings against the society

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

case of the assessee for immediate preceding A.Y., i.e. 2012-13. 5. It is observed that the case of the assessee was assessed as protective assessment for the preceding year also. It confirms the stand of the Revenue that, in the matter of the assessee, the revenue is firm about ... when the status of Sh. Mahendra Mehra has been taken as substantive and further confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A), there is no protective assessment stands on its own feet now against the assessee under consideration. 6. In view of above, the notices mentioned (supra) issued

Laura Ann, Singapore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, International Taxation, Trivandrum

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

ITA 262/COCH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CA

submit response is bad in law 3) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have noticed that this is a case of protective assessment, the substantial assessment, having been made in the hands of the appellant's mother and even if there was a delay, should have called ... Ld.CIT(A) Page 3 of 4 and submitted that the assessee is having a good case on merits since this assessment is only a protective assessment and already substantive assessment is made in the hands of the assessee’s mother and prayed to allow the appeal. The Ld.DR relied

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Smt. Saroj Bhatia, Delhi

ITA 3968/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A

impugned protective additions. We are of the considered view that allthough there would be no dispute about the foregoing settled legal propostion involving a protective assessment, the facts herein stand on a different footing since there is a clear cut finding that the corresponding substantive additions in case

ACIT Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Sahil Tradewell Marketing Privated Limited, Gurgaon

ITA 321/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A

impugned protective additions. We are of the considered view that allthough there would be no dispute about the foregoing settled legal propostion involving a protective assessment, the facts herein stand on a different footing since there is a clear cut finding that the corresponding substantive additions in case

ACIT Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Sahil Tradewell Marketing Private Limited, Gurugram

ITA 320/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A

impugned protective additions. We are of the considered view that allthough there would be no dispute about the foregoing settled legal propostion involving a protective assessment, the facts herein stand on a different footing since there is a clear cut finding that the corresponding substantive additions in case

ACIT Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Sahil Tradewell Marketing Private Limited, Gurugram

ITA 319/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A

impugned protective additions. We are of the considered view that allthough there would be no dispute about the foregoing settled legal propostion involving a protective assessment, the facts herein stand on a different footing since there is a clear cut finding that the corresponding substantive additions in case

ACIT Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Sahil Tradewell Marketing Private Limited, Gurugram

ITA 318/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A

impugned protective additions. We are of the considered view that allthough there would be no dispute about the foregoing settled legal propostion involving a protective assessment, the facts herein stand on a different footing since there is a clear cut finding that the corresponding substantive additions in case

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Gurugram vs. Sahil Tradewell Marketing P.Ltd, Gurugram

ITA 317/DEL/2023[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 153A

impugned protective additions. We are of the considered view that allthough there would be no dispute about the foregoing settled legal propostion involving a protective assessment, the facts herein stand on a different footing since there is a clear cut finding that the corresponding substantive additions in case

Sh. Pooran Mal Kanwat, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

18. As a result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A), and impugned assessments framed by Assessing Officer, are set aside

ITA 82/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 50CSection 69

stands dismissed. And, thereby, the assessment computing total income of the assessee at Rs. 26,17,66,850/-has been upheld. It was a protective assessment qua the assessee, making first addition on account of unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act, to safe guard the interest of Revenue ... were found to be the actual owner of the lands under consideration, and the assessee being only namesake lender. It was also a protective assessment qua the assessee, making second addition on account of undisclosed Short Term Capital Gain on sale of property by adopting value

Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3), Pune vs. M B Ashtekar, Pune

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

ITA 332/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 68

impugned assessment order is totally silent about whether or when the substantive assessment has been done in the hands of the company or not. Protective assessment is a precautionary assessment. Where an income has arisen, but AO is not sure who will pay tax on that income, he resorts ... precautionary or protective assessment. The object of a protective assessment is that in case substantive addition is made in the hands of other person and in case that assessment fails, Department must get the tax from the person in whose hands the protective assessment is made Thus, a protective assessment

Dhanaraja Bahu Ganesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1511/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Padmavathy S & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.H.Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Ms.Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 148Section 68

proceedings. In ground No.4, the assessee has challenged the legality of the present proceeding on the ground that without there being any substantive assessment, protective assessment is not permissible in 2 Sri.Dhanaraja Babu Ganesh law. Ground No.5 is relating to the merits of the addition made ... year under consideration and that too on protective basis. So far as the contention of the assessee that there cannot be any protective assessment without any substantive assessment, we think that this issue becomes academic, further the assessee has neither raised this ground before the CIT(A) nor filed

Subrato Gangopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-53(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2325/KOL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 2322 To 2325/Kol/2016 & 1878/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2006-07 Subrato Gangopadhyay C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Chartered Accountants, Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Diamond Chambers, Unit- Manicktalla Civic Centre, Il', 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, 4 West Bengal, 700054 Chowringhee Lane, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Aeepgo0158D] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2596/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Madhumita Ganguli C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Chartered Accountant, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Diamond Chambers, Unit- West Bengal, 700054 Ill, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Ajfpgo374F] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 17

No.2596/KOL/2013 for A.Y. 2005- 06 in case of Smt. Madhumita Ganguli. In this appeal, the appellant/ assessee’s i.e. wife, challenge the protective assessment of ₹30,67,500/-. We have reviewed the findings of the ld. CIT (A), who issued notices to the appellant and considered the remand report from ... husband assets, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, the protective assessment in the wife case, in ITA No.2596/KOL/2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 has been sustained, the substantive addition made in the husband case

Subrato Gangopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-53(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2324/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 2322 To 2325/Kol/2016 & 1878/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2006-07 Subrato Gangopadhyay C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Chartered Accountants, Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Diamond Chambers, Unit- Manicktalla Civic Centre, Il', 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, 4 West Bengal, 700054 Chowringhee Lane, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Aeepgo0158D] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2596/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Madhumita Ganguli C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Chartered Accountant, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Diamond Chambers, Unit- West Bengal, 700054 Ill, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Ajfpgo374F] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 17

No.2596/KOL/2013 for A.Y. 2005- 06 in case of Smt. Madhumita Ganguli. In this appeal, the appellant/ assessee’s i.e. wife, challenge the protective assessment of ₹30,67,500/-. We have reviewed the findings of the ld. CIT (A), who issued notices to the appellant and considered the remand report from ... husband assets, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, the protective assessment in the wife case, in ITA No.2596/KOL/2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 has been sustained, the substantive addition made in the husband case

Subrato Gangopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-53(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2323/KOL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 2322 To 2325/Kol/2016 & 1878/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2006-07 Subrato Gangopadhyay C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Chartered Accountants, Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Diamond Chambers, Unit- Manicktalla Civic Centre, Il', 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, 4 West Bengal, 700054 Chowringhee Lane, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Aeepgo0158D] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2596/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Madhumita Ganguli C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Chartered Accountant, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Diamond Chambers, Unit- West Bengal, 700054 Ill, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Ajfpgo374F] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 17

No.2596/KOL/2013 for A.Y. 2005- 06 in case of Smt. Madhumita Ganguli. In this appeal, the appellant/ assessee’s i.e. wife, challenge the protective assessment of ₹30,67,500/-. We have reviewed the findings of the ld. CIT (A), who issued notices to the appellant and considered the remand report from ... husband assets, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, the protective assessment in the wife case, in ITA No.2596/KOL/2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 has been sustained, the substantive addition made in the husband case

Subrato Gangopadhyay, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-53(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2322/KOL/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 2322 To 2325/Kol/2016 & 1878/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2006-07 Subrato Gangopadhyay C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Chartered Accountants, Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Diamond Chambers, Unit- Manicktalla Civic Centre, Il', 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, 4 West Bengal, 700054 Chowringhee Lane, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Aeepgo0158D] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2596/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Madhumita Ganguli C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Chartered Accountant, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Diamond Chambers, Unit- West Bengal, 700054 Ill, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Ajfpgo374F] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 17

No.2596/KOL/2013 for A.Y. 2005- 06 in case of Smt. Madhumita Ganguli. In this appeal, the appellant/ assessee’s i.e. wife, challenge the protective assessment of ₹30,67,500/-. We have reviewed the findings of the ld. CIT (A), who issued notices to the appellant and considered the remand report from ... husband assets, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, the protective assessment in the wife case, in ITA No.2596/KOL/2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 has been sustained, the substantive addition made in the husband case

Smt. Madhumita Ganguli, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward-51(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2596/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Oct 2024AY 2005-2006

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos. 2322 To 2325/Kol/2016 & 1878/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2002-03 To 2006-07 Subrato Gangopadhyay C/O. V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Chartered Accountants, Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Diamond Chambers, Unit- Manicktalla Civic Centre, Il', 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, 4 West Bengal, 700054 Chowringhee Lane, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Aeepgo0158D] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) I.T.A. No. 2596/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Madhumita Ganguli C/O V.N. Purohit & Co., Vs Ito, Ward-53(4), Kolkata Chartered Accountant, Manicktalla Civic Centre, Diamond Chambers, Unit- West Bengal, 700054 Ill, 4Th Floor, Suit No.4G, West Bengal, 700016 [Pan: Ajfpgo374F] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 17

No.2596/KOL/2013 for A.Y. 2005- 06 in case of Smt. Madhumita Ganguli. In this appeal, the appellant/ assessee’s i.e. wife, challenge the protective assessment of ₹30,67,500/-. We have reviewed the findings of the ld. CIT (A), who issued notices to the appellant and considered the remand report from ... husband assets, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Since, the protective assessment in the wife case, in ITA No.2596/KOL/2013 for the A.Y. 2005-06 has been sustained, the substantive addition made in the husband case

Thomas Chandy, Kottayam vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Kochi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 880/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhthomas Chandy Dcit, Circle Tps Karimpanal, Vizhikkithode Public Library Building Vs. Kanjirapally, Kottayam 686507 Sashri Road [Pan: Adzpc3009P] Kottayam 686001 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian, CIT-DR
Section 250

income assessed on substantive for the assessment year 2012-13. Meaning thereby that it is assessee only in whose hands both these substantive and protective assessments have been framed regarding the very impugned long term capital gain addition. That being the clinching case, we quote 2 Thomas Chandy ... apex court’s landmark decision in [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC) Lalji Haridas vs. ITO, setting the law of such a protective assessment framed on ex abundanti cautela i.e., “out of an abundant caution:” reading as follows: "In cases where it appears to the income tax authorities that certain income

Biju Thottathil Mathew, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kalpetta

Appeal is allowed

ITA 905/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year 2015-16 Sri.Biju Thottathil Mathew The Income Tax Officer Thottathil, Kottooli V. Ward-2, Kalpetta. Mammilimeethal Paramba Kozhikode – 673 016. Pan : Adapt7151Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : ------- None ------ Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2015-16 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)]’S Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057136409(1) Dated 17.10.2023 In Proceedings U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. We Accordingly Proceed Exparte.

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 69B

emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue’s side that both the lower authorities have made section 69B protective assessment of Rs.2,03,02,558/- in assessee’s hands. Learned D.R. vehemently argues that vide assessment findings in para 3, the Assessing Officer had made

Jabbar Mattul Abdul, Ernakulam vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Kochi

ITA 813/COCH/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)

order in para-8 page-16 that the Assessing Officer had made substantive addition(s) in assessee’s brother/family member(s) hands followed by protective assessment(s) in question before us, That being the case, we see that there is indeed a lack of clarity indicating the final outcome