TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eleting the protective addition made by the AO. And it can be very well seen that the basis for deletion resorted by Ld CIT(A) to delete the protective assessment in the hands of assessee was because there was no substantial addition in the hands of M/s. Society of Education. This crucial fact has not been rebutted/controvered/assailed before us. No infirmity in the action of Ld. CIT(A) to have deleted the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee when the fact was that there was no substantive addition in the hands of M/s. Society of Education or other assessee s and ergo the same is confirmed. - Decided against revenue. - I.T.A. No. 460/GAU/2019 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2021 - Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President And Shri A. T. Var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the sums deposited/withdrawn in the bank account are not pertaining to him and so he is not maintaining any details of the cash deposits or withdrawals in the said bank account. It was brought to the notice of AO that the deposit/withdrawal of sums are reflected in the books of Junior College and he was not in a position to produce the books of the Junior College during his assessment proceedings because the Junior College is managed by M/s Society of Education and, therefore it was submitted before the AO that it is not just and proper to consider the sum credited in the Savings Bank Account (supra) as his own. 5. After receipt of the reply from the assessee, the AO noted that there were withdrawals amounting to ₹ 94,55,938/- b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ategorical finding of fact that there was no substantial addition of such an amount (₹ 1,51,56,830/-) made prior in the case of M/s. Society of Education and this finding of fact has not been rebutted/controverted or assailed by the revenue before us by filing specific ground to this effect in this appeal. From a perusal of the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue (supra), it is clear that the revenue has only assailed the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the protective addition made by the AO to the tune of ₹ 1,51,56,830/-. And it can be very well seen that the basis for deletion resorted by Ld CIT(A) to delete the protective assessment in the hands of assessee was because there was no substantial addition in the hands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3,17,67,951/- made in its bank account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi, during the year is added to the income of the assessee on protective basis. In this case we find that AO has not made any substantive assessment. There may be Substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. In the case of M.P. Ramchandran vs. DCIT [129 TTJ 190 at page 195], it was held/averred, as follows, by the Hon ble ITAT: In order to give a different colour, the ld. DR contended that this disallowance was made on protective basis only and hence cannot be equated with the substantive disallowance. We have noted above about the validity and presum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the revenue Whether the above observations are enough to conclude that the assessment of the capital gains as long-term capital gain in assessment year 2001-02 by the Assessing Officer was only a protective assessment? We have already seen the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalji Haridas (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while recognizing the concept of protective assessment has very clearly laid down that there must be an exhaustive enquiry and the question as to who is liable to pay (in this case which year the capital gain is to be assessed and whether as long-term capital gain in assessment year 2001-02 or short term capital gain in assessment year 2000-01) should be determined after h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
