TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 595
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal against a 'protective' assessment which, by definition, is not an assessment in present and one which would become so only if the substantive assessment is finally cancelled in appeal (which is not a fact here, as the substantive addition in the hands of Rajyog Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. for AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 is subject matter of appeal before the ITAT. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in deleting protective addition the addition of Rs. 2,44,68,000/- by upholding that no substantive addition has been made in the case of any other assessee without considering the fact that substantive addition was made in the case of Rajyog Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. in subsequent years i.e. AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 amounting to R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with questionnaire was issued to the assessee on 13.05.2019. The assessee vide his reply dated 30.5.2019 submitted that return u/s. 147/148 of the Act has been filed. Another notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued and in response to the same, the assessee filed details and documents on the department's web portal 'ITBA' for e-assessment. On considering the submissions, the AO completed the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act on 31.12.2019 by making addition of Rs. 2,44,68,000/- on protective basis by noting that since the assessee is an accommodation entry provider and fund received from various parties have been transferred immediately to other paper companies. AO further made an addition of Rs. 1,21,323/- on substantive basis in respect of l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of Rs. 2,06,57,000/- which was invested as share application money in earlier years and received back during the year cannot be added under section 68, 69 or 69A of Income Tax Act. It is not the case of the Assessing Officer that identity, genuineness or creditworthiness has not been proved. Necessary documentary evidence has been furnished by the appellant. 4.4.11 An amount of Rs. 65,50,000/- was advanced as share application money during the year and received back during the year through banking channels. No addition can be made with regard to this amount under section 68, 69 or 69A of Income Tax Act, particularly when no finding has been given by the Assessing Officer that identity, genuineness or creditworthiness has not b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that with regard to contentions raised by the revenue in the grounds of appeal that substantive additions were made in the hand of Rajyog Buildtech Pvt Ltd for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 and year involved in the present appeal of the assessee is AY 2012-13 and therefore it can have no relation with AY 2013- 14 and AY 2014-15. Moreover, even for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014- 15, the additions made in the hand of Rajyog Buildtech Pvt Ltd has not survived as the CIT(A) as well as ITAT has deleted the additions made in the case of Rajyog Buildtech Pvt Ltd. Copy of ITAT common order for AY 2013- 14 and AY 2014-15 in the case of Rajyog Buildtech Pvt Ltd has been placed on record. He further submitted that it is a settled law that if the substantive....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the material available on record. 7. We have gone through the judgments of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: i. CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2016] 380 ITR 573/(2015) 234 Taxman 300/61 taxmann.com 412 (Delhi), ii. All Cargo Global Logistics Limited Vs. DCIT [2012] 18 ITR 106, iii. ACIT, Central Circle-16, New Delhi vs. Vinita Chaurasia, ITA No. 5957/DEL/2015 dated 05.10.2018, iv. ACIT, Central Circle-4, New Delhi vs. M/s. Moolchand Steels Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 2544/DEL/2015 dated 10.10.2018 etc. 8. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla (supra) held as under: "vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut any legal basis as there was no incriminating material qua each of those AYs. Conclusion 72. To conclude: (i) Question (i ) is answered in the negative i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. It is held that in the facts and circumstances, the Revenue was not justified in invoking Section 153A. of the Act against the Assessee in relation to AYs 2000-01 to AYs 2003-04." 10. We have gone through the entire plethora of judgments. 11. The decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as no assessment was pending on the date of search and t he addition has been made merely on the basis of the book entries alrea....