2015 (10) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....irming the addition of Rs. 19,89,225/- made by the Assessing Officer on the ground of unexplained cash deposited in the bank account. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 19,89,225/- on substantive basis though the Assessing Officer has made the said addition on protective basis." 1.1 Side by side the appellant has also raised an additional ground of appeal as under:  "1. Alternatively and without prejudice to other grounds ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that assessment order framed on protective basis in absence of substantive assessment framed at all is illegal, void ab initio and against the principles of law that deserves to be quashed. It be so held now."....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew that the account was maintained jointly by the assessee and her son Shri Rahul Shah. The first name in the account is that of the assessee and if any deposits are made in the account, the first name is to be held responsible to explain the deposits. The cash deposits in bank cannot be treated as explained as the same were state to be recorded in the books of accounts of appellant's son. The evidence should be produced for this by the appellant. No any evidence to this fact was filed to justify the claim by the Ld. Counsel. In view thereof, the cash deposit of Rs. 19,89,225/- are treated as unexplained and the addition so made is confirmed. Since the Assessing Officer has made the addition in hands of the assessee on protective basis,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to reopened the assessment in the case of Rahul H Shah for A.Y. 2008-09. Thus this office has not initiated any re-assessment proceedings or any addition made on the protective or substantive basis in the case of Rahul H Shah for A.Y. 2008-09." 4.1 Learned AR has placed reliance on an order of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 (SC). 5. On the other hand, from the side of the Revenue, learned Sr.D.R., Sri B.L. Yadav has vehemently argued that there is no bar that only when a substantive addition has been made thereafter a protective assessment could be made. Learned Sr.D.R. has also objected the raising of the additional ground at this stage of appeal. In respect of this objection relianc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shah for A.Y. 2008-09. Learned AR has pointed out that the said return was filed in due course. Along with the return the statement of accounts and the said bank account was duly disclosed. A tax auditor has examined the books of account of Rahul H. Shah. As per the balance sheet drawn as on 31st March, 2008 a Corporation Bank SB Account No.15986 was duly disclosed. The deposits were in the regular course of business on several dates and some of the entries were contra entries in the bank account. Learned AR has pleaded on the basis of those evidences that although the said bank account stood in the name of the assessee as well as in the name of her son but for all purposes that was operated by son and not by the assessee. Sri Rahul H. Sha....