9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... survived as the CIT(A) as well as ITAT has deleted the additions in the matter of DCIT VS. Rajyog Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. [ 2022 (7) TMI 1552 - ITAT DELHI] wherein, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals of the Revenue. Thus it is abundantly clear that substantive addition has not survived. It is a settled law that if the substantive addition does not survive, the protective addition also does not survive. To support this view, we refer the decision in the case of Pr. CIT (Central)-2 vs. Electrical and Electronic India Ltd [ 2023 (11) TMI 657 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein, it has been held that addition made on protective basis does not survive where the substantive addition has been deleted. In our considered view, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO on protective basis, which does not need any interference on our part, hence, we affirm the action of the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly the grounds raised by the Revenue are rejected. Appeal by the Revenue is dismissed. - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member, And Shri Sudhir Kumar, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Amit Goel, CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. For the Respondent : Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.5.2019 through ITBA portal and further notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 13.05.2019. The assessee vide his reply dated 30.5.2019 submitted that return u/s. 147/148 of the Act has been filed. Another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed details and documents on the department s web portal ITBA for e-assessment. On considering the submissions, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2019 by making addition of Rs. 2,44,68,000/- on protective basis by noting that since the assessee is an accommodation entry provider and fund received from various parties have been transferred immediately to other paper companies. AO further made an addition of Rs. 1,21,323/- on substantive basis in respect of loss on sale of shares. 3. Against the aforesaid assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his order dated 08.07.2020 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the substantive addition of Rs. 1,21,323/- and deleted the protective addition of Rs. 2,44,68,000/-. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) are reproduced as under:- 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records. 6. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO and reiterated the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. 6.1 Per contra, at the outset, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that in the case of Lalsi Hardas vs. ITO [43 ITR 387) (SC) the Hon ble Apex Court has held that where the AO was not certain as to who has actually received the income, protective addition could be made by the AO. However, the Apex Court clarified and laid down the principle that firstly there should be an assessment of the person where the AO thinks that substantive addition has to be made. Thus he submitted that in accordance with the aforesaid decision of Hon ble Apex Court, the addition made by the AO on protective basis is not sustainable and the Ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. It was further submitted that with regard to contentions raised by the revenue in the grounds of appeal that substantive additions were made in the hand of Rajyog Buildtech Pvt Ltd for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and year involved in the present appeal of the assessee is AY 2012-13 and therefore it can have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi vs. M/s. Moolchand Steels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2544/DEL/2015 dated 10.10.2018 etc. 8. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (supra) held as under: vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the A.O. while making the assessment under section 153A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment 9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its recent decision in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2017) 395 ITR 526 in paras 69 to 72 has held as under: 69. What weighed with the Court in the above decision was the habitual concealing of income and indulging in clandestine operations and that a person indulging in such activities can hardly be accepted to maintain meticulous books or records for long. These factors are absent in the present case. There was no justification at all for the AO to proceed on surmises and estimates without there being any incriminating material qua the AY for which he sought to make addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
