TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 732
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd protective addition in the hands of assessee thereafter, in the case of Manish Kothari the substantive addition has been deleted by this Tribunal and it was held that the income on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit Ujjain be assessed in the hands of the society though, the said addition was restricted to peak credit. Therefore, the assessee was under bonafide belief that once the substantive addition has been deleted by the Tribunal in the hands of Manish Kothari then a protective addition made in the hands of the assessee would be deleted by the AO as a consequence of the Tribunal order. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 before the AO and thus the assessee did not file any appeal against the impugned orders of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR has thus submitted that since there was no tax demand involved as a result of protective addition the assessee was advised that the protective addition would be deleted in the hands of the assessee and thus the assessee acting on the bonafide advice did not file any appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. AR has submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is neither willf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....intention to take any undue advantage by assessee. The assessee has acted on the advice of the tax consultant for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case where the protective addition made by the AO has not resulted any tax demand against the assessee the delay in filing these appeals is not found to be deliberate or due to negligence or on account of malafide on the part of the assessee. Accordingly having regard to peculiar facts of this case and in the interest of justice we condoned the delay in filing these appeals. 5. The assessee has raised common grounds in these appeals. The grounds raised for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced as under: "1. The delay in filing in appeal may please be condoned since the assessee was under the bonafide belief that the protective assessment would automatically be cancelled since the Hon. Tribunal has upheld the substantive assessment. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred in passing the order ex-parte since majority of the notices were uploaded on portal during the pandemic period. No proper opportunity was given and hence the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC is bad in law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arita Maryadit Ujjain as well as Manish Kothari in ITANo.286 to 289/Ind/2018 and in ITAT No.719 to 722/Ind/2017 & 862 to 865/Ind/2018 this tribunal vide order dated 11.02.2021 has held that the addition on account of these cash deposits is liable to be made in the hands of the society and not in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari. He has then referred to the decision of this Tribunal in case of Smt. Sonal Chhablani vs. ITO in ITANo.17/Ind/2013 wherein he Tribunal vide order dated 31st May 2023 after considering earlier decision of the Tribunal in case of Shri Manish Kothari & Vardhman Sakh Sahkarita Maryadit Ujjain has deleted the addition made on protective basis in the hands of the said assessee Smt. Sonal Chhablani. Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that this issue is now covered by decision of this Tribunal dated 31.05.2023 wherein the identical protective addition was made by the AO on the basis of the same survey proceedings and entries in the pocket diary found from Vardhman Sakh Sahkarita Maryadit Ujjain has been deleted by this Tribunal. 9. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied upon orders of the authorities below. 10. We have considered rival submission as well as relevant materi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ain, during the year under consideration but he could not explain the entries in the pocket note book as BI-1 found and impounded during the course of survey at the premises of Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita, Maryadit, Ujjain. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 16,26,110/- is added to the total income of the assessee protectively as the same has to be added substantively in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the then president Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit, Ujjain. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are being initiated for which notice shall be issued separately 5. Thus, it is clear that these were the entries found in the pocket diary as cash deposit in the name of different persons including the assessee. The assessee denied to have made any financial transactions with the society or deposit of any cash with the society. The AO consequently made addition of Rs. 16,26,110/- on protective basis as a substantive addition of the said amount was made in the hands of Shri Manish Kothari, the president of Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit, Ujjain. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the Ld. CIT(A) however, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine for non-prosecution. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... second common issue for the substantive addition confirmed in the hands of the assessee for the unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act made for the alleged cash deposit in the bank account of the society namely Shree Vardhman Sakh Skarita Maryadit of which the assessee is holding the post as President. We observe that the impugned additions of Rs 9,23,93,228/-, Rs. 13,90,35,137/-, Rs. 17,69,03,922/-, Rs. 26,21,59,360/-, Rs. 37,02,21,964/- (Rs. 34,05,94,493 & Rs. 2,53,43,026/)-, Rs. 52,39,28,273/- (Rs. 36,54,12,434/- & Rs. 15,85,15,839/-), Rs. 74,49,35,922/- (Rs.65,07,34,968/- & Rs. 9,42,00,954/-) and Rs. 49,31,33,630/- (Rs.35,16,71,541/- & Rs. 14,14,62,089/-) for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2015-16 respectively was made by the Ld. A.O to the income of the assessee ITA Nos. 286 to 289/Ind/2018 ,719 to 722/Ind/2017 & 862 to 865/Ind/2019 Shri Vardhman Sakh Sahakarita Maryadit & Manish Kothari on account of cash deposited in the bank account of the society namely Shree Vardhman Sakh Skarita Maryadit. Protective addition was made in the hands of the society and the substantive addition was made in the hands of the assessee for unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 32. We observ....