2022 (7) TMI 54 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT deletes protective additions in assessee's hands for A.Y. 2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13

DCIT-CC 3 (2), Mumbai Versus Chintamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd.

The ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete protective additions of unaccounted investment and commission in the assessee's hands for A.Y. 2011-12 ... Protective assessment - Addition u/s 69/69C - Unaccounted investment ad unaccounted commission - addition on protective basis in hands of assessee - CIT(A) deleting the protective addition on the issue of unaccounted investment and on the issue of unaccounted commission u/s 69C - HELD THAT:- 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 so the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee has been deleted by him which action of the 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 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 three parties namely M/s. First-winner Textile (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Bhagat Textile Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Starwood Exports Pvt. Ltd. CIT(A) has deleted the protective addition in the hands of the assessee on the same reason for deleting the addition on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, on the same reasoning (mutatis and mutandis) as stated for confirming the action of the Ld. CIT(A), we uphold this action of the Ld. CIT(A) also. And coming to the revenue appeal for AY 2012-13, we note that there is no difference in facts (except of figures) as well as law and additions made are also identical and the grounds of appeal are also same, so on same reasoning (mutatis mutandis) we dismiss both the appeals of the revenue. Issues:- Protective addition of unaccounted investment for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13- Protective addition of unaccounted commission u/s 69C for A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13Analysis:1. Protective Addition of Unaccounted Investment:- The AO made protective additions in the hands of the assessee based on unaccounted investments in various companies. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted these additions, noting that substantive additions were already made in the hands of the respective companies.- The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed substantive additions in the hands of M/s. First Winner Textiles (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Bhagwat Textiles Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Starwood Exports Pvt. Ltd. The AO's report revealed that these companies did not appeal against the substantive additions.- Consequently, the ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions in the assessee's hands, as the companies in question did not challenge the substantive additions.2. Protective Addition of Unaccounted Commission u/s 69C:- Similar to the unaccounted investment issue, the protective additions of unaccounted commission were also confirmed substantively in the hands of the three companies.- The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the protective additions in the assessee's case based on the same reasoning as for the unaccounted investment.- The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals for both A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13, as the facts, law, and additions were identical, and the companies did not challenge the substantive additions.In conclusion, the ITAT upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the protective additions of unaccounted investment and commission in the assessee's hands, as the substantive additions were confirmed in the companies' hands, and no appeals were filed by the companies against these additions. The appeals filed by the revenue for both assessment years were dismissed accordingly.