TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are common and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. We take up the Revenue's appeal being ITA No.2232/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14 as lead case to adjudicate the issues under consideration. 3. Brief facts of the case are, in the case of the assessee, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (for short 'the Act)' was carried out on 25.02.2016. The case of the assessee was centralized in this circle vide order dated 30.05.2016 passed by the Pr. CIT-15. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on 05.05.2017 and duly served on the assessee, requiring the assessee to file the return of income. In response, the assessee filed return of income on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he registered address of M/s Lazare International Group Limited was P.O. Box 958 Road Town, Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands. The company is authorised to issue 50,000 shares out of which two shares at value USD 1.00 each were issued by the company. It was informed that Shri Ravi Bharadwaj was Director of M/s Lazare International Group Limited from 22.04.2008 to 09.04.2010. Besides, he was shareholder of the said BVI company holding one share for the said period. Thereafter, this share was transferred to M/s Prosper Management Ltd, Withheld Tower, Third Floor, 4792 Coney Drive, P.O.Box 1777, Belize City, Belize on 09.04.2010. Further, copies of Registration of Charges for Standard Chartered Bank, Singapore and ABN AMRO Bank N.V. has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The year wise credits have been tabulated as below: Fin. Year Credits in US Dollar Credits in Singapore Dollar Credits in New Zealand Dollar Total of credits equivalent to in Indian Rupees 2010-11 6,76,83,800.59 1,92,22,200 374.39.40.280.73 2011-12 8,76,95,948.71 3,02.22,735.19 96.38.554.22 572,51,27,040.01 2012-13 3,03,45,053.06 1.08.88.271.54 1.00.33.734.94 257,11,16,992.05 Total 18,57,24,802.36 6,03,33,206.73 1,96,72,289.16 120,401,84,312.79 8. Based on the above information, the AO observed that on analysis of information received from BVI Authorities, it was revealed that assessee was Director and shareholder of BVI Company, Lazare International Group....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A), Delhi -31 and made a detailed submissions before him. Ld. CIT (A) reproduced the same in the impugned order and finally held as under :- 14. Upon careful consideration of the matter, I find that the ratio of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) is squarely applicable to the case in hand. It is not in dispute that the additions have been made by the AO on the basis of information available in public domain and information received from BVI and not on the basis of material found/unearthed during the search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act; and that no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of search and seizure operation. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction. For this, he relied on the following judgments: i) G.K Consultants Ltd vs. ITO, ITA No. 1502/Del/2013 ii) M.P. RAMACHANDRAN vs. DCIT, (2010) 129 TTJ (Mumbai) 190 iii) SURESH K. JAJJOO vs. ACIT, (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai) iv) RAMESH CHAND PREM RAJ SONI (HUF) vs. ACIT, 105 TTJ 904 17. The appellant also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, (2023) 151 taxman.com 207 (Delhi-Trib) to buttress his point that once addition have been made under the BMA, the same addition cannot be made under the Act. Since, I have deleted the additions following the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... basis of no incriminating material found in the case of the assessee relying on the decision of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) and further ld. CIT (A) has deleted the addition on the basis of substantive addition, was initiated under Black Money Act which is under sub-judice. Ld. CIT (A) observed the above facts on record and that the substantive additions have been subsequently made u/s 10(3) of the Black Money Act for AY 2017-18. Therefore, the protective assessment was made prior to substantive assessment under Black Money Act which is illegal. Ld. CIT (A) gave relief on the basis of protective assessment is made prior to substantive assessment, therefore, protective assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction by relying on the following ....