TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 40
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 65,35,57,000/- made by the AO ignoring the ratio decided and laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO 43 ITR 387 (SC), 1961." And Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT, Gujarat II Vs. Surendra Gulab Chand Modi 140 ITR 517 (Guj) 1983 wherein it is held that such 'Protective Assessment'- which in law should be allowed to remain as such - till the matters attain finality by Superior Courts- High Court or Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in proceedings with the matter and in disposing of it instead of blocking it till the final disposal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO linked these entries to professional bookies, such as "Chotu Bansal," and identified a contact "KKS" as Shri Kamal Kishore Sarda through seized digital data. The AO found that payments were accepted at secretive locations across New Delhi rather than at official business premises, indicating the winnings were from illegal activities. These findings were corroborated by widespread news reports and police actions in Jaipur and Bikaner, which detailed a multi-crore betting racket involving hundreds of crores of rupees placed on the 2017 Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Elections. The AO concluded that the entries in the seized diary represented settled accounts and outstanding winnings from these betting activities. 4. Against the order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... protective addition of Rs. 6,32,69,000 was made concerning a property sale to Smt. Santosh Khanna. The CIT(A) looked into the AO's findings, which the assessee contended were based on mere surmises and lacked independent enquiry or a fair opportunity for rebuttal. * Procedural and Jurisdictional Validity: The CIT(A) also deliberated on the assessee's procedural challenges, including the validity of the search warrants, the jurisdiction of the AO, and the legality of reissuing notices under Section 153A. The assessee argued that the search at certain premises was conducted without valid warrants and that the overall assessment was framed in violation of statutory procedures. 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. DR rel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... addition-cannot survive. * Kanav Metals vs. ITO [ITA No. 7778/Del/2019]: The Delhi Bench followed the aforementioned Jodhpur Bench decision, affirming that since the 5 substantive addition did not survive due to being time-barred, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee firm also did not survive. * Pr. CIT vs. Electrical and Electronic India Ltd. [2023 (11) TMI 657 - ITA 595/2023]: The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that no substantial question of law arises when a protective addition is dropped following the deletion of the substantive addition on its merits. * Lalji Haridas vs. ITO [43 ITR 387]: While the Supreme Court allowed for simultaneous proceedings at the initial inquiry stage to....