9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon found them correct – they made no addition in respect of the amount - while deciding the appeal of the assessee, CIT(A) has also noted all of those evidences and held that the said transaction being reflected in the return of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Chaudhary and that return was accepted by the Revenue Department –thus, the assessment of the amount protectively in the hands of the assessee did not survive - the findings of the First Appellate Authority upheld – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No.2942/Ahd/2010, CO No.334/Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2014 - Shri Mukul Kr. Shrawat And Shri T. R. Meena,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri K.C. Mathews, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri Anil Kshatriya ORDER Per Shri Mukul Kumar Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amlesh Chaudhary is quite acceptable at this stage, however, it is also significant at this point of time that Shri Kamlesh Chaudhary is assessed with ITO, Ward-1, Mehsana and the assessment of his income for the relevant period is yet to be done. In view of this fact, it is essential to add these deposits in the case of assessee on protective basis. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.15,72,000/- is hereby added to the total income of the assessee on protective basis treating the same as un-explained. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to concealment of his income. 2.1 Thereupon an addition of Rs.15,72,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee which was chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kamlesh Chaudhary has owned the bank account and has confirmed the same which has not been doubted by the A.O. The A.O.'s only reason for making addition is that assessment in the case of Shri Kamlesh Chaudhary is pending and so he is making the addition on protective basis. The said reasoning is not as per law because protective assessment is made only when there is reason to believe that the income under dispute may be belonging either of two persons, then only addition is made on protective basis in one of the case. In this particular case, assessee's elder brother has owned the account and stated that he has operated this account. This fact is not disputed by both of account holders. Moreover, Shri Kamlesh Chaudhary had filed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R has, therefore, pleaded that although the reasoning for reopening was very much in the notice of the Income Tax Officer but after considering the explanation and the return of income filed by the brother, the concerned ITO had chosen to accept the returned income. Learned AR has then concluded that once there was no substantive addition of impugned amount then there ought not to be any question of protective assessment in the hands of the assessee. 4.1 Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the explanation offered before us, we are of the considered opinion that the Revenue Department has examined the evidences in respect of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Chaudhary and thereupon found them correct; hence, made no ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
