TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to as 'the Act'] dated 19.02.2024, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act, dated 18.12.2019. 2. Grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows: "1. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by the A.O. u/s 69A of the Act on protective basis in light of the fact that no addition was made on substantive basis in case of sender party - Om Jewellers, Delhi. 2. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has grievously erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the A.O. by observing that no details were furnished before the AO. 3. That the learned CIT(Appeals) has grievously erre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nees was the appellant and therefore, as per the provisions of the Act, the appellant was provided with copies of Satisfaction Note and statements recorded. The AO also intimated the jurisdictional AO of the claimed consignor of gold / Bullion /jewellery i.e. M/s. Om Jewellers, Delhi regarding the seizure of 460.955 gms of gold valued at Rs. 14,01,303/- and to take appropriate actions in that case. The appellant was also specifically asked to furnish the details and submission regarding the gold seized along with supporting evidences in respect of Fine Gold of 460.955gms (valued at Rs. 14,01,303/-) claimed to have been send by M/s. Om Jewellers, Delhi. Since, no details were furnished before the AO, he finalized the assessment 143(3) r.w.s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was made in the hands of OM Jewellers therefore, protective addition should not be made in the hands of the assessee. Ld. Counsel submitted that this protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee u/s.69 A of the Act, which was not required as the substantive addition has not been made by the Department in the hands of true owner, then no protective addition should be made in the hands of the assessee under consideration, under the wrong section of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the findings of the authorities below and stated that since no substantive addition has been framed by AO, therefore, the protective addition should be sustained in the hands of the assessee, to pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment is to be made in the cases of M/s. Om Jewellers, Delhi. 10. The appellant has contended that the supplier M/s. Om Jewellers, Delhi is the owner of the gold and they had sent parcel to the appellant for the job-work purposes and had submitted all the details during the post-search proceedings. It is also stated that the supplier had furnished the stock register as well as his purchase bills evidencing that he had enough stock on hand from which the gold has been sent to the appellant for job-work. All these facts have already been verified by the AO during the assessment proceedings and no new evidences have been filed during the appellate proceedings before CIT(A). It is also stated that the copy of assessment order in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings from the Income tax login of Om jewellers Proprietor Sonu Luthra depicting that no assessment has been carried1 out for the A.Y 2018-19 in the hands of true owner. (4) Page print from the Income tax login of Om Jewellers -Proprietor Sonu Luthra depicting Nil outstanding demand. 12. Since the Ld. DR for the Revenue confirmed this fact that substantive addition has not been made in the hands of M/s. Om Jewellers, who was the true owner of the gold. The Protective addition was merely made in the hands of the assessee under consideration to protect the revenue. The AO made protective addition only in the hands of the assessee on the presumption that if substantive addition is made in the hands of M/s. Om Jewellers and til....