Protective tax additions cannot survive once the substantive addition is confirmed in another taxpayer's hands.

Protective additions made for alleged accommodation entries and a section 69B adjustment were not revived where the corresponding substantive additions had already been confirmed in another person's hands. The ITAT Delhi noted that a protective addition exists only to safeguard the Revenue and has no independent basis once the substantive tax addition is sustained elsewhere. On that footing, deletion of the protective additions was upheld in proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue could revive protective additions made towards alleged accommodation entries and section 69B addition when the corresponding substantive additions already stood confirmed in another person's hands.

Analysis: The appeal concerned reopening proceedings under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The sole ground was directed against deletion of protective additions. It was noted that the protective additions had been deleted by the first appellate authority because the corresponding substantive additions already stood confirmed in another person's hands. The purpose of a protective addition is only to safeguard the Revenue's interest, and once the substantive addition has been sustained elsewhere, revival of the protective addition was found unwarranted.

Conclusion: The Revenue could not revive the protective additions, and the appeal was dismissed.

---