2014 (6) TMI 227 - AT - Income Tax

Protection addition made - Addition as unexplained credits Held that - As it has been already been held by the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year, the Tribunal was of the view that it is proved beyond doubt that the bank accounts were owned by Mr. B.Bhushan and Smt. Renu Bhushan - the bank accounts belonged to M/s NextWave India (AOP) and not NextWave India(P) Ltd. - the protective additions made by the AO and enhancement thereof by the CIT(A) are deleted and the appeals by NextWave India (P) Ltd. are allowed. The existence/veracity of the Tribunal order has not been challenged by the department - It has also not been refuted that the Tribunal Order has been accepted by the department - the facts remaining the same for the year also, as were present before the Tribunal for the immediately two preceding assessment years and the immediately succeeding assessment year, the Tribunal Order needs must be followed - the addition made on substantive basis is the same as that made protectively is to be set aside Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against ex-parte decision by Ld. CIT (A)
2. Legality of proceedings u/s 147/148
3. Treatment of unexplained credits in bank account
4. Assessment based on protective basis
5. Confirmation of assessment order by Ld. CIT (A)
6. Tribunal order for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2005-06
7. Ownership of bank accounts disputed
8. Addition made protectively
9. Challenge of Tribunal order by department

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the ex-parte decision by Ld. CIT (A) for Assessment Year 2004-05. Grounds 1 and 2 were not pressed by the assessee and were rejected accordingly.

2. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s 147/148 based on information received from the Investigation Wing. The issue revolved around credit entries in the bank account of the assessee company, which the directors claimed did not belong to the company. The assessment was made on a protective basis due to undisclosed income arising from these transactions.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the assessment order, leading to the appeal. The assessee relied on a Tribunal order for AYs 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2005-06, where it was established that the bank account belonged to another entity, not the present assessee.

4. The Tribunal order highlighted various facts proving the ownership of the bank accounts by individuals other than the assessee company. The department did not challenge the existence or acceptance of the Tribunal order.

5. Following the Tribunal order and noting the similarity in the assessment of the AOP for the relevant year, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted. The appeal was partly allowed based on this analysis.

6. The judgment emphasized the importance of following precedent and established facts in similar cases. The ownership of the bank accounts and the protective additions were crucial in determining the outcome of the appeal.

7. The decision underscored the significance of presenting relevant evidence and legal arguments before the authorities to support the case effectively. The Tribunal's findings played a pivotal role in resolving the dispute regarding the ownership of the bank accounts and the subsequent assessment.

8. By considering the Tribunal order and the consistency in treatment across assessment years, the appellate tribunal provided a detailed analysis leading to the partial allowance of the appeal and the deletion of the protective addition made by the Assessing Officer.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and legal considerations involved in the case, leading to the final decision by the appellate tribunal.