TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well settled proposition of law that when substantive addition does not survive on account of being time barred, then the protective addition also does not survive. The said view of ours have been fortified by the order of Ramesh Chand Prem Raj Soni (HUF) [ 2003 (5) TMI 225 - ITAT JODHPUR] . Accordingly, since the substantive addition has not been survived on account of being time barred, consequently, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee herein also will not survive, accordingly, we delete the protective addition by setting aside the order of the Lower Authorities. - Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. Ved Jain, Advocate And Mr. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was alleged of not having not been declared in statement of accounts. The appellant craves leave of this Honorable Court to add, amend, substitute or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of arguments. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 12,220/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee shown to have derived income from wholesale business of scrap. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny, during the course of the assessment proceedings it was noticed from the balance-sheet of the Assessee Firm that an addition of Rs. 67,50,000/- (Rs. 35,0,000/- in Sh. Dhiraj Harjai account and Rs. 32,50,000/- in Sh. Neeraj Harjai account) was made to the Fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns for the AY 2014-15, copy whereof enclosed herewith. The detail of PAN acknowledgement of return of income being herein as under: Name of Person/Assessee PAN Acknowledgement No. M/s Kanav Metals AAKFK2420J 435154711301114 Sh. Neeraj Harjai AAAPH7620M 513061870200315 Sh.Dhiraj Harjai AAPPH1938F 513060540200315 That the addition in the capital account have been made by the partners and out of the sources known to the partners in their personal capacity. That the partners owns responsibilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see vide order dated 30/08/2019 which is under challenge before us by the assessee on the grounds mentioned above. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act against the partners of the assessee firm have been dropped on account of same becoming time barred as per the provision of Section 153(2) of the Act on 31/03/2023, therefore, contended that substantial addition made in the hands of the Assessee Firm does not survive. By relying on the order of the Tribunal of Jodhpur Bench in the case of Ramesh Chand Prem Raj Soni (HUF) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2006 (10) TMI 197-ITAT, Jodhpur dated 06/10/2016 and sought for allowing the Appeal. 6. Per con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hrough all the relevant papers placed in the file to which our attention was drawn. There is no dispute with regard to the facts that all the additions, which are the subject-matter of this appeal or for that matter that of assessment order passed under s. 158BD in the case of the HUF, are made on protective basis. All parallel additions were made in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Soni individual. The assessment made under s. 158BC in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand Soni does not survive at all, since it has been struck down being time-barred. The addition made on substantive basis have not been decided by deleting the same from assessee's individual hands rather they were thrown along with the block assessment order. meaning thereby, now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
