TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 51
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) is not justified in deleting the protective addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,51,56,830/- for the A.Y. 2016-17." 3. From perusal of the aforesaid ground raised by the Revenue, it is taken note that the Revenue is aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the protective addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,51,56,830/-. 4. Brief fact of the case as noted by the AO is that the assessee has filed the return of income on 2.03.2018 showing total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,62,800/-. The AO noted that the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and reason for scrutiny selection "substantial cash deposit in the bank account". The assessee pursuant to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, in this regard brought to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the hands of the assessee and added to the total income of the assessee on protective basis to safeguard the interest of revenue and he also observed in the assessment order that the substantive addition would be made by the respective AO of M/s Society of Education (Alpha Beta College) and that the information regarding this is being passed to the that AO of the college and thus he made protective assessment in the hands of the assessee to the tune of Rs. 1,51,56,830/-. 6. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to hold that in the absence of any prior substantive addition in the case of M/s. Society of Education, no protective assessment could have been made by the AO in the hands of assessee a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant decisions of this Tribunal which reads as under: "In the case of ITO vs. Fussy Financial Services Private Limited [I.T.A. No.44/DEL/2014 dated 05/06/2017, it was held/averred, as follows, by the Hon'ble ITAT-Delhi: We further note that the analysis of the investment account reveal that the company has made investment of Rs. 5,04,01,000/. The statement given by Sh. PN Jha assumes importance wherein he categorically admitted that the company was doing the business of investment and finance and during the year the bank accounts of the company have been used to provide the accommodation entries. The addition of Rs. 3,17,67,951/- made by the Assessing Officer on protective basis, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive assessment/addition. Substantive addition/assessment is made in the hands of the person in whose hands the AO prima facie holds the opinion that the income is rightly taxable. Having done so and with a view to protect the interest of the Revenue, if the AO is not sure that the person in whose hands he had made the substantive addition rightly, he embarks upon the protective assessment. Thus the protective assessment is basically based on the doubt of the AO as distinct from his belief which is there is the substantive assessment." In the case of Gregory & Nicholas vs. ACIT [I.T.A. No.5102/Mum/2006 &IT(SS)A No.24/Mum/2009 dated 01/03/2007], it was held/averred, as follows, by the Hon'ble ITAT (Mumbai): "21. In the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In the case of G.K. Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No.1502/Del/2013 dated 27/06/2014], [upheld in CIT vs. G.K. Consultants Ltd., 2016 (6) TMI 136 Delhi High Court], it was held/averred, as follows, by the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi: "19. On careful consideration of above contention, we are of the view that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be any protective assessment/addition without substantive assessment/addition, meaning thereby there has to be some substantive assessment/addition first which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition. In the present case, the AO proceeded to make protective assessment by way of reopening of assessment of the assessee appellant c....