9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to have recourse to make a protective assessment, thus the Tribunal was not justified in holding that in the absence of the real owner and as AO was not aware as to who is the real owner of the income a protective assessment should not have been made and instead a substantive assessment has to be made - against the assessee. - Income Tax Reference No.105 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2013 - R.K. Agrawal And Bharati Sapru, JJ. ORDER The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench 'B' New Delhi has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", for opinion of this Court. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s shown by the assessee trust. On further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal allowed the appeal holding that it was necessary to indicate who was the real owner and the order did not indicate the same in these circumstances the assessment framed on the assessee was to be treated as substantive assessment. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that in the absence of indicating about the real owner of the income no protective assessment can be made and the only course left open to the Assessing Officer was to make a substantive assessment. He submitted that the Apex Court in the case of I.T.O. vs. Bachu La Kap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and veracity of the claim made by the person, who has filed the return in that event he will be well within his rights to make a protective assessment. We may mention here that in the case of doubt or ambiguity about real entity in whose hands a particular income is to be assessed the Assessing Authority is entitled to have recourse to make a protective assessment. That being the position we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that in the absence of the real owner and as the Assessing Officer was not aware as to who is the real owner of the income a protective assessment should not have been made and instead a substantive assessment has to be made. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
