Protective addition and duplicate commission income cannot stand without independent evidence of ownership or separate income in the assessee's hands.

Protective addition in the assessee's hands was deleted where the cash trail and transaction chain were already owned up by another person and no independent material showed that the amount belonged to the assessee. The addition for the gold-related transaction, including the alleged commission, was also deleted because the source person had explained the advance and profit, and the record did not separately establish commission income in the assessee's hands. The dispute concerning 2 kg of gold seized by the Enforcement Directorate was remanded because ownership was not conclusively verified and that question was material to taxability as commission income.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the protective addition of Rs. 9,00,00,000 was sustainable in the hands of the assessee. (ii) Whether the addition of Rs. 1,98,00,000 and the associated commission addition of Rs. 4,00,000 were sustainable in the hands of the assessee. (iii) Whether the addition relating to 2 kg of gold seized by the Enforcement Directorate could be sustained without first verifying ownership.

Issue (i): Whether the protective addition of Rs. 9,00,00,000 was sustainable in the hands of the assessee.

Analysis: The addition was founded on statements recorded during post-search investigation. The material on record showed that the cash trail and transaction chain were already owned up by the other person whose statement explained receipt of funds from Mohit Garg. The assessee's role was treated as only a transfer link in the movement of funds, and no independent material established that the amount represented income belonging to the assessee.

Conclusion: The protective addition of Rs. 9,00,00,000 could not be sustained in the assessee's hands and was deleted.

Issue (ii): Whether the addition of Rs. 1,98,00,000 and the associated commission addition of Rs. 4,00,000 were sustainable in the hands of the assessee.

Analysis: The transaction was explained by the person who had advanced the cash for purchase of gold and who also disclosed the profit arising from the transaction. The record did not show any independent material that the assessee earned a separate commission of Rs. 4,00,000. Since the transaction had already been owned up by the source person, the same amount could not again be assessed in the assessee's hands.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 1,98,00,000 and the commission addition of Rs. 4,00,000 were not sustainable in the assessee's hands and were deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether the addition relating to 2 kg of gold seized by the Enforcement Directorate could be sustained without first verifying ownership.

Analysis: The record did not conclusively establish whether the seized gold belonged to the assessee or to the company in which he was a director. As the ownership question was material to the taxability of the amount as commission income, further verification was required before a final addition could be made.

Conclusion: The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification of ownership and fresh consideration.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, the assessee succeeded on the protective addition of Rs. 9,00,00,000 and on the addition of Rs. 1,98,00,000 with Rs. 4,00,000 commission, and the dispute regarding 2 kg of gold was sent back for verification.

Ratio Decidendi: A protective addition cannot be sustained where the underlying transaction is already owned up by another person on the record and no independent material shows that the amount belongs to the assessee; similarly, a duplicated addition of the same transaction cannot be made in the assessee's hands absent separate evidence of income earned by him.

---