2021 (7) TMI 605 - AT - Income Tax

Addition of substantive and protective basis - Addition for alleged donation to an educational institution - As submitted by the Ld. AR that since the additions on substantive basis have been settled by the said assessee therefore the additions made on protective basis in the hands of assessee are required to be deleted - HELD THAT - Admittedly the additions were made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis whereas the additions were made in the hands of Dr. Ahmad Tariq Jameel, on substantive basis. Further it is a matter of record that the tax liability of Dr. Ahmad Tariq Jameel have been settled in the scheme of the revenue and revenue had also issued form 3 in favour of Dr Jameel. As the tax liability on substantive basis have been settled by Dr Jameel, therefore the tax liability on protective basis, cannot stand or sustained in the eyes of law after the settlement of the tax liability on substantive basis in the hands of assessee, as the additions were made on protective basis in the hands of the assessee with a view to protect the interest of the revenue. Once the interest of the revenue is protected by way of settlement of the tax liability in the hands of the right person, there is no occasion to tax the assessee who had been assessed on protective basis. Additions in the hands of the assessee are required to be deleted.

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of alleged donation to an educational institution
2. Proper opportunity of being heard not given
3. Legality of the assessment under Sections 144/147
4. Service of notice under Section 148
5. Deeming income for non-submission of source of investment
6. Protective addition made without proof of payment
7. Interest charged under Sections 234A and 234B
8. Legality of income assessed, additions made, and Assessment Order

Issue 1: Addition of Alleged Donation to an Educational Institution
The appellant contested the addition of ?10,00,000 for alleged donation to an educational institution, arguing it was wrong, illegal, and lacked proper opportunity for explanation. The appellant claimed the addition was arbitrary, unjust, and against the facts and law of the case. The appellant emphasized that nowhere was it proven that the amount was paid. The tribunal noted that the substantive additions were made in the hands of the appellant's guardians, and since those were settled, the additions made on a protective basis in the appellant's hands needed to be deleted. The tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that once the tax liability on substantive basis was settled, no tax liability could be imposed on the appellant.

Issue 2: Proper Opportunity of Being Heard
The appellant argued that the assessing officer erred in not providing a proper opportunity to be heard. However, the tribunal's decision focused on the substantive issue of additions being made in the guardians' hands and subsequently settled, leading to the deletion of protective additions in the appellant's hands. The tribunal did not delve deeply into the procedural aspect of the opportunity to be heard due to the substantive resolution of the tax liability issue.

Issue 3: Legality of the Assessment under Sections 144/147
The appellant challenged the legality of the assessment under Sections 144/147, claiming it was bad in law. The tribunal, while not directly addressing the legality of the assessment under these sections, based its decision on the settlement of tax liability on a substantive basis, leading to the deletion of protective additions in the appellant's hands. This resolution indirectly addressed the legality of the assessment under Sections 144/147 by considering the settlement of tax liability.

Issue 4: Service of Notice under Section 148
The appellant contended that the notice issued under Section 148 was not properly served as per law. However, the tribunal's decision did not focus on the service of notice issue but rather on the settlement of tax liability on a substantive basis, leading to the deletion of protective additions in the appellant's hands.

Issue 5: Deeming Income for Non-Submission of Source of Investment
The appellant objected to the income addition of ?10,00,000 for non-submission of the source of investment, arguing it was grossly arbitrary and unjust. The tribunal's decision centered on the settlement of tax liability on a substantive basis, resulting in the deletion of protective additions in the appellant's hands, without directly addressing the issue of deeming income for non-submission of the source of investment.

Issue 6: Protective Addition Made Without Proof of Payment
The appellant argued that the protective addition made without proof of payment was wrong, illegal, and lacked factual basis. The tribunal's decision focused on the settlement of tax liability on a substantive basis, leading to the deletion of protective additions in the appellant's hands, without specifically addressing the lack of proof of payment issue.

Issue 7: Interest Charged under Sections 234A and 234B
The appellant challenged the interest charged under Sections 234A and 234B as wrong and illegal. The tribunal's decision did not directly address this issue but rather resolved the case based on the settlement of tax liability on a substantive basis, resulting in the deletion of protective additions in the appellant's hands.

Issue 8: Legality of Income Assessed, Additions Made, and Assessment Order
The appellant raised concerns about the legality of the income assessed, additions made, interest charged, and the Assessment Order under Sections 144/147. The tribunal's decision did not specifically address the legality of each aspect but focused on the settlement of tax liability on a substantive basis, leading to the deletion of protective additions in the appellant's hands, which indirectly addressed the concerns raised regarding the legality of the income assessed, additions made, and the Assessment Order.

← Previous Next →