Divyes Vinodrai Patadiya Vs ACIT (ITAT Rajkot)
Protective addition collapses once substantive tax paid by real owner; ITAT Rajkot deletes gold addition u/s 69A
Rajkot Tribunal allowed Assessee’s appeal & deleted protective addition of ₹10,68,864 u/s 69A made on account of gold seized during courier interception. Tribunal noted that Assessee was merely a job-worker & ownership of seized gold stood clearly identified. In respect of gold sent by M/s Global Jewels India Ltd, substantive addition had already been made in sender’s hands, leading CIT(A) to rightly delete corresponding protective addition. As regards gold of M/s Jiya Gems Pvt Ltd, Tribunal observed that substantive addition had also been made in hands of real owner u/s 69A, who accepted ownership & tax liability. Once substantive addition is made in hands of real owner, protective addition in hands of job-worker cannot survive. Tribunal held that taxing same gold twice is impermissible & protective assessment must yield to substantive assessment. Accordingly, entire protective addition was deleted & appeal of Assessee was allowed
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAJKOT
Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], dated 09.10.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 19.12.2019.
