AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 316
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also challenging the addition of Rs.3,30,000/- partially confirmed by Ld CIT(A). 2. This is the second round of appeal proceeding before the Tribunal. In the first round, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 28-11-2019 passed in ITA No.75/Jodh/2019, had restored the matter to the file of Ld CIT(A) in order to adjudicate the legal ground relating to validity of reassessment proceedings, since the Ld CIT(A) had not adjudicated the same. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 17-06-2020 came to be passed by Ld CIT(A), wherein the Ld CIT(A) upheld the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, in the present appeal, the assessee is challenging both the order so passed by Ld CIT(A) on the validity of reassessment proceeding and also raised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt. 5. Accordingly, in order to protect the interests of revenue, the AO reopened the assessment of assessee herein, vide notice dated 09-12-2013 issued u/s 148 of the Act, for the purpose of making addition of Rs.16.00 lakhs on PROTECTIVE BASIS. In the reopened assessment, the AO made the addition of above said amount on protective basis in the assessment order passed on 30-03-2015. It is pertinent to note that the assessments of other three account holders were also reopened and in their hands also the above said amount was assessed on protective basis. 6. All the joint account holders challenged the addition made in their respective hands by filing appeals before Ld CIT(A). In the first round, the Ld CIT(A) disposed of the appeal f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stantive basis is deleted, then the protective addition made in the hands of other assessee shall become addition on substantive basis and tax liability could be enforced. 8. In view of the above said legal proposition, the Ld CIT(A) should have decided the appeal of Ms Garima Jain first and should have given a definite finding as to the assessee in whose hands, the addition should be made. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has not given any such definite finding and proceeded to examine the explanations for sources for making deposit of Rs.16.00 lakhs. Finally he held that the addition to the extent of Rs.3,30,000/- should be sustained. The decision was so rendered in the hands of the assessee herein, i.e., Prakash Chandra Jain. In the hands....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leted u/s 143(3) in which she stated that the cash of Rs. 16,00,000/- was deposited in her bank account by her father Sh. Prakash ji her mother Smt. Bimla Devi, her sister Kumari Pranita and her brother Sh. Nikhil. The sash deposit of Rs. 16.00 lacs were added substantially in the income of the assessee. However, since the assessee denied the ownership of these cash deposits, the deposited in bank are to be assessee protectively in the hands of her father, mother, sister and brother i.e. Sh. Prakash ji, Smt Bimla Devi, Kumari Pranita and Sh. Nikhil. Since the sources of these cash deposites of Rs. 16 lacs remained unexplained, the cash of Sh. Prakash ji, Smt Bimla Devi, Kumari Pranita and Sh. Nikhil are proposed to be assessed u/s 147 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on suspicions. Thus, we are of the view that the AO has not satisfied the mandatory condition prescribed for initiation of reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned reassessment proceeding is bad in law. 11. We noticed that the AO has reopened the assessment for the purpose of making protective addition. The question as to whether reopening of assessment for making protective addition is valid or not was examined by the Bangalore bench of Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Bullion Investments & Financial Services P Ltd (2010)(123 ITD 568)(Blore). In this case, undisclosed investment in the share capital of the above said company was assessed in the hands of one Shri G.P Goyal on the basis of material found during t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to Shri G.P. Goyal, then there was no further material to come to the conclusion that such escaped income belonged to the assessee. 2.6 The Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas v. ITO[1961] 43 ITR 387 observed at page 392 as under :- "In case where it appears to the income-tax authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant assessment year but it is not clear who has received that income and prima facie, it appears that the income may have been received either by 'A' or 'B' or by both together. It would be open to the relevant income-tax authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against 'A' and 'B'." But in the instant....