Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Artline Vinimay Private Limited

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee filed its e-return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 16,178/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee's bank account was credited with an amount of Rs. 2,44,68,000/- from cash deposits, transfers, and some companies. Reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated, and the assessee filed its return of income on 23.04.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 16,180/-. The AO completed the assessment on 31.12.2019 by making an addition of Rs. 2,44,68,000/- on a protective basis and Rs. 1,21,323/- on a substantive basis. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who deleted the protective addition. The Revenue appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in entertaining and disposing of an appeal against a 'protective' assessment.
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the protective addition of Rs. 2,44,68,000/-.
• 3. Whether the necessary documentary evidences have been filed by the assessee to prove identity, creditworthiness, or genuineness with respect to the refund of share application money.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Subhash Chander vs DCIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16Allowed

• ACIT vs Techno FAC Contracts Private Ltd

  Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai - 400706 Vs. Savla Associates

  Mumbai benchAY 2020-21Dismissed

• Kalakriti Engineers India Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench 'A', Delhi benchAY 2008-09Allowed

• Accord Electropower Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Ward 5(1)(1)