Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (7) TMI 54

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... us in respect of this appeal that these three entities in whose hands the substantive additions have been confirmed by the CIT(A) by his order has not preferred any further appeal against the action of Ld. CIT(A) before this Tribunal, so the impugned action of CIT(A) deleting the protective addition in the hands of assessee company is upheld. Nevertheless, as an abundant caution for the interest of revenue, in-case if these three entities had preferred or prefers an appeal later, then the revenue would be at liberty to take appropriate action to recall this order in accordance to law. Coming to the protective addition based on the purported commission income also we note that the same have been substantively confirmed in the hands of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... commission u/s 69C of the Act and for A.Y.2012-13, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the protective addition of Rs.6,88,00,000/- on the issue of unaccounted investment and of Rs.17,20,000/- on the issue of unaccounted commission u/s 69C of the Act. 4. Since the facts and law governing the lis for both assessment years are identical/similar, the result of the adjudication in respect of A.Y.2011-12 will decide the appeal of revenue for A.Y.2012-13. So, first the appeal of the revenue for the A.Y.2011-12 is taken up. 5. The brief facts of the case as noted by Ld. CIT(A) is as under:- The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 23.09.2011 declaring th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tries. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of AO making protective addition on it, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to delete the same by noting that the AO had made substantive addition in the hands of M/s. First Winner Textiles (India) P. Ltd., M/s. Bhagwat Textiles P. Ltd. M/s. Starwood Exports P. Ltd. on account of accommodation entries received from concerns of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and has only resorted to protective addition in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also took note of the fact that the protective addition of Rs.1,25,00,000/- made in the hands of assessee was confirmed substantively by him vide order dated 03.11.2017 in the hands of the M/s. Bhagwat Textiles Pvt. Ltd whi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he has confirmed the substantive addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.14,00,00,000/- which included the addition related to the assessee of Rs.50 lakhs. However, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that the AO while making the protective addition in the hands of the assessee made addition to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/- whereas according to assessee it was only Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, the AO was directed to verify this issue and adopt the correct figure in respect of both companies. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by taking note that since he has confirmed the substantive additions on the three entities (supra), he was pleased to delete the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved by the impugned action of Ld .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ition substantively confirmed by Ld CIT(A) (supra). In the light of the aforesaid facts, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order by taking note that he has confirmed the substantive additions on the three entities (supra), so the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee has been deleted by him which action of the Ld. CIT(A) does not require any interference from our side because we note from the AO s report placed before us in respect of this appeal that these three entities in whose hands the substantive additions have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by his order dated 03.11.2017, has not preferred any further appeal against the action of Ld. CIT(A) before this Tribunal, so the impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates