2024 (1) TMI 217 - HC - Income Tax

Addition on protective basis - ITAT sustained CIT(A) order who deleted the addition made by AO, albeit on protective basis, on the ground that a substantive addition was being made against the company in which the respondent/assessee was a director and a sole shareholder - The record shows that comapany Everbez was being proceeded under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 HELD THAT - Appellant states that the best way forward would be to close the instant appeal, with liberty to the appellant/revenue to approach the Court, in case the appellant/revenue were to fail in the proceedings taken out against the respondent/assessee, concerning Everbez under the 2015 Act. We tend to agree with this above. Accordingly, the appeal is closed with liberty as prayed for. The registry will dispatch a copy of the order to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including email.

Summary

Issues involved: Application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal; Appeal concerning Assessment Year 2014-15 and deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Application for Condonation of Delay: The appellant/revenue filed an application seeking condonation of a 40-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The court, considering the period involved, decided to condone the delay and disposed of the application accordingly.

Appeal Concerning Assessment Year 2014-15: The appeal was filed by the appellant/revenue against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning Assessment Year 2014-15. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer on a protective basis, amounting to Rs. 2,75,75,955/-, due to proceedings against the company Everbez under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order. The senior standing counsel suggested closing the appeal with liberty for the appellant/revenue to approach the Court if necessary. The court agreed with this suggestion and closed the appeal with the mentioned liberty. The order was to be dispatched to the respondent/assessee via all modes, including email, and the appellant/revenue was to ensure service of the order on the respondent/assessee.