← 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

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

ITA 812/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

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

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

ITA 811/COCH/2023[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

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

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-I, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1348/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

assessee nor his father Mr U S Awasthi. Interestingly to make a mockery of the law, there is no mention also of any protective assessment of any income in any of the two satisfaction notes on the said facts/amounts and/or that a similar satisfaction has already been recorded two days

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1347/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

assessee nor his father Mr U S Awasthi. Interestingly to make a mockery of the law, there is no mention also of any protective assessment of any income in any of the two satisfaction notes on the said facts/amounts and/or that a similar satisfaction has already been recorded two days

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, C.C.1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1346/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

assessee nor his father Mr U S Awasthi. Interestingly to make a mockery of the law, there is no mention also of any protective assessment of any income in any of the two satisfaction notes on the said facts/amounts and/or that a similar satisfaction has already been recorded two days

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1345/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

assessee nor his father Mr U S Awasthi. Interestingly to make a mockery of the law, there is no mention also of any protective assessment of any income in any of the two satisfaction notes on the said facts/amounts and/or that a similar satisfaction has already been recorded two days

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, C.C.1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1344/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

assessee nor his father Mr U S Awasthi. Interestingly to make a mockery of the law, there is no mention also of any protective assessment of any income in any of the two satisfaction notes on the said facts/amounts and/or that a similar satisfaction has already been recorded two days

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, C.C.1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1343/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

assessee nor his father Mr U S Awasthi. Interestingly to make a mockery of the law, there is no mention also of any protective assessment of any income in any of the two satisfaction notes on the said facts/amounts and/or that a similar satisfaction has already been recorded two days

Amol Awasthi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, C.C.1, New Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated

ITA 1342/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 153C

assessee nor his father Mr U S Awasthi. Interestingly to make a mockery of the law, there is no mention also of any protective assessment of any income in any of the two satisfaction notes on the said facts/amounts and/or that a similar satisfaction has already been recorded two days

ACIT Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai vs. S.P.Velayutham, Chennai

ITA 1819/CHNY/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1819/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 V. The Acit, Shri S.P.Velayutham, Non-Corporate Ward-14(1), No.3/107, No.5, Chennai. Sabari Salai, Madipakkam, Chennai-600 091. [Pan: Aagpv 0872 P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 50C

hands of the vendor Shri K.S.Deenadayalu and Shri Venkatakrishnan, (whose Power of Attorney holder was assessee) according to the AO, STCG needs to be protectively assessed also in the hands of the assessee and the demand arising from it needs to keep in abeyance till the assessment reach finality ... appellant is that when substantive assessment in the hands of Sri K.S. Deenadayalu Reddy for A.Y. 2008-09 was upheld by CIT(A), the protective assessment in the hands of assessee as P/A holder of Sri K.S. Deenadayalu Reddy cannot legally stand valid. It is true that there cannot

Miss Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 69/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

authority in view of the fact that the substantive assessment is made in the case of the assessee and therefore, there is no subsisting protective assessment as on the date which is also not challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal due to low tax effect. Accordingly, if we hold

Miss Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 68/NAG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

authority in view of the fact that the substantive assessment is made in the case of the assessee and therefore, there is no subsisting protective assessment as on the date which is also not challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal due to low tax effect. Accordingly, if we hold

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 67/NAG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

authority in view of the fact that the substantive assessment is made in the case of the assessee and therefore, there is no subsisting protective assessment as on the date which is also not challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal due to low tax effect. Accordingly, if we hold

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 66/NAG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

authority in view of the fact that the substantive assessment is made in the case of the assessee and therefore, there is no subsisting protective assessment as on the date which is also not challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal due to low tax effect. Accordingly, if we hold

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 65/NAG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

authority in view of the fact that the substantive assessment is made in the case of the assessee and therefore, there is no subsisting protective assessment as on the date which is also not challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal due to low tax effect. Accordingly, if we hold

M/S. Fatema Shoeb Hussain, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Nagpur

ITA 64/NAG/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur02 Sept 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rachit ThakarFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 69

authority in view of the fact that the substantive assessment is made in the case of the assessee and therefore, there is no subsisting protective assessment as on the date which is also not challenged by the Revenue before the Tribunal due to low tax effect. Accordingly, if we hold

Lovekesh Patil, Burhanpur vs. CIT Appeals, Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 316/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Lovekesh Patil, Ito, House No. 204/1, Burhanpur बनाम/ Village - Turak Gurada, Vs. District – Burhanpur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Dhnpp1752B Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri K.Bala Murli Krishna, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

himself stated in the assessment order that the assessee has explained cash deposit during demonetization from agricultural activities. Hence, there was no need of protective assessment during the relevant assessment year. 5. That the Ld. ITO Burhanpur has erred in making addition of agricultural income

Lalita Narendra Kothari, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1732/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J., Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

wherein the Revenue’s contentions stood rejected as follows: 6 Ms. Lalita Narendra Kothari “24. The Tribunal firstly explained the concept of Protective assessment, which was judicially recognized in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where it appears ... final determination had therefore to be made in one of the proceedings. 7 Ms. Lalita Narendra Kothari 25. The Tribunal thereafter opined that a Protective Assessment is not confined to making assessment of same income in the hands of two different persons; but can also be made in the case

Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 978/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

substantial addition I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 6 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others and protective assessment in the hands of Smt. Indumatiben R. Tanna and Smt. Ritaben S. Tanna. 3.3. Thereafter, AO has provided assessee bifurcation of cash deposits, cheque

Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 977/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

substantial addition I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2014-15 Page No 6 Saketkumar R Tanna vs. ITO & 2 Others and protective assessment in the hands of Smt. Indumatiben R. Tanna and Smt. Ritaben S. Tanna. 3.3. Thereafter, AO has provided assessee bifurcation of cash deposits, cheque