AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 10.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by Ld.CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. This case has a peculiar set off facts which deserve to be briefly mentioned. In this case, the Ld. AO received information that the assessee was making cash deposits and affecting trading in commodities in the names of one Shri Rajeev Kumar and Shri Rishi Sharma. The Ld. AO is seen to have commenced investigation with the basic premise that it was the assessee who was carrying on the impugned transactions and not the two persons in whose names, allegedly, the said transactions had actually been shown. The assessee is seen to have questioned the assumption of jurisdiction before the Ld. AO and there is also a fact that the AO has engaged the services a handwriting expert to come to the conclusion that the impugned transactions were actually entered into by the assessee and not by the alleged name lenders. Thereafter, the Ld. AO made protective additions as detailed on pages 7 & 8 of his order.
The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A), where also he could not succeed on the basis of findings given on pages 11 to 13 of the impugned order.
The assessee, being further aggrieved, has approached the ITAT with grounds which challenge the assumption of jurisdiction and most importantly as per ground no.6, has stated that all additions are made on protective basis and no additions have been made on substantive basis.
Before us the Ld. AR made a statement at the Bar that the additions were made on protective basis only, without there being a consequential substantive addition in anybody’s name. It was the submission that a protective addition cannot survive until and unless there is a substantive addition in another hand. The Ld. AR requested that this issue needs to be adjudicated first before proceeding any further.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and most importantly could not controvert the Ld. AR’s submission that there is no substantive addition made regarding the impugned amounts.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. It is a settled position that there cannot be a protective assessment without any substantive assessment elsewhere. In this case, after going through the documents before us and the fact that the Ld. DR has not been able to controvert the submissions of the Ld. AR that no substantive assessment has been made in this case, we cannot support the orders of the authorities below and it is directed that the additions made on protective basis should be deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.