ITAT rulings on protective addition, cash deposits, and appeals for various assessment years.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective addition related to amounts received from FTUMPT, dismissing the revenue's appeals for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. Regarding the addition of unexplained cash deposits, the ITAT remanded the issue to the AO for fresh examination, instructing deletion if satisfactorily explained or determining peak credit if not. The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-11 for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Protective addition of amounts received from Free Trade Unions Multi Purpose Trust (FTUMPT).
2. Addition of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Protective Addition of Amounts Received from FTUMPT:
The revenue challenged the deletion of a protective addition of Rs. 38,50,000 made on account of amounts received from FTUMPT by the assessee. The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without addressing the substantive addition made in the case of Ms. Chandbibi Zaidi, where it was alleged that the managing trustee siphoned off funds under the guise of bogus expenditure on repairs to Kennedy House. The ITAT noted that the assessee had included the amounts received from FTUMPT in his income-tax returns and had followed the principles of deeming net profit under Section 44AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ITAT also considered the decision in the case of Ms. Chandbibi Zaidi, where the substantive addition was deleted, and concluded that the protective addition in the assessee's case could not survive. Consequently, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective addition, dismissing the revenue's appeals for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07.

2. Addition of Unexplained Cash Deposits in Bank Accounts:
The assessee contested the addition of unexplained cash deposits found in two bank accounts under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO had made the addition on the ground that the assessee failed to explain the sources of income for the credits found in the bank accounts. The assessee argued that the deposits were from known sources, including withdrawals from his two proprietary concerns, M/s Sai Civil Décor and M/s Mahalaxmi Enterprises, and transfers from his HUF and wife's accounts. The ITAT observed that the assessee had not provided detailed explanations during the assessment proceedings but later submitted a paper book containing bank statements and other evidence. The ITAT decided to remand the issue to the AO for fresh examination, directing the AO to consider the evidence and delete the additions if the sources were satisfactorily explained. If not, the AO was instructed to determine the peak credit and sustain the addition to that extent. Thus, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeals for AYs 2006-07 to 2010-11 for statistical purposes.

Conclusion:
The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals and allowed the assessee's appeals for statistical purposes. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective addition related to amounts received from FTUMPT and remanded the issue of unexplained cash deposits for fresh examination by the AO. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21st August 2018.

---