AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073289847(1), dated 14.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It next emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground herein is directed against both the learned lower authorities’ action adding it alleged unexplained income of Rs.3,33,00,000/- in assessment order dated 29th March, 2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
The Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing Officer had made the impugned addition on “protective” basis in the assessee’s hands after having assessed M/s. RS India Infrapower Pvt. Ltd. on substantive basis. We find that apart from the fact that the impugned addition has been made on “protective” basis there is not even a single indication in para 5 of the assessment order as to what is the doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer for making the impugned “protective” addition in the assessee’s hands so as to safeguard the Revenue’s interest as settled in Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC). We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant former substantive ground to delete the impugned “protective” addition of Rs.3,33,00,000/- in very terms.
Next comes the latter addition of Rs.25,82,274/- made by both the learned lower authorities whilst assessing the assessee’s alleged commission income on credit transactions of Rs.25,82,274/- in question. The learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that both the learned lower authorities have neither quoted any comparable instances nor justifies the impugned assessment @ 2% which is found to be a bit on higher side. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that estimation of assessee’s impugned commission income element @ 1.5% in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.