Sri.Biju Thottathil Mathew v. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)]’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057136409(1) dated 17.10.2023 in proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee did not appear for the hearing, leading to the case being proceeded with exparte. Both the lower authorities had made a section 69B protective assessment of Rs.2,03,02,558/- in the assessee’s hands. The learned D.R. argued that the Assessing Officer had made his intention clear for the purpose of making a substantive assessment in proportional terms. The Tribunal found that making a protective addition first and a substantive addition later is not sustainable in light of certain precedents, and thus, the protective addition was deleted.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the protective addition made by the lower authorities is sustainable?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Geojit Financial Services Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 9 1(2) Kochi

  Cochin bench

• Peralam Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. The Income Tax Officer

  Cochin bench

• Raman Kumar Beri v. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench 'SMC', New Delhi benchAY 2022-23Dismissed

• M/s. Nishan Inbuild Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Joginder Payla & Ors. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-27 & Ors.

  'B' Bench, Delhi benchAY 2013-14 to 2020-21Allowed

• Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-31 vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2019-20Dismissed