Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur v. Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, D-23

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 301/2018 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, D-23-25, Prem Bhawan, Lal BahadurNagar, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Adv. For Respondent(s): HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 27/08/2019 -D.B.Civil Misc. Application No.2189/2018: For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is allowed. D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 301/2018 1.The present appeal by the Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act questions the deletion of protectiveadditions made by the Revenue. The premises of the assesseeand other individuals were searched on 23.05.2013. The AO hadbrought to tax `7,19,50,000/- on protective basis in the hands ofthe assessee; these were deleted by the CIT(A). A sum of`50,00,000/- was brought to tax in the hands of the assessee andsustained by the CIT(A). 2.The Tribunal noted that the protective addition wasbased upon notings in the diary relating to certain piece of landand that the substantive addition of the said amount was made inthe hands of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta. This was deleted andaddition was made on substantive basis in the hands of MadanMohan Gupta and M/s. Shree Kalyan Buildmart Private Limited. Therefore, the protective addition in the hands of the assesseewas deleted. 3.This Court finds no reasons to interfere with theconcurrent findings of fact on the issue of protective assessment,rendered by the CIT(A) and ITAT as they are based upon purefactual appreciation. So far as the substantive addition of sum of`50,00,000/- brought to tax, which was deleted by the ITAT isconcerned, the Tribunal noted that these amounts were a part ofthe regular assessment completed under Section 143(3) and thatin the absence of any incriminating material, the issue could nothave been revisited. 4.The Court is of the opinion that there is no error orinfirmity as such. 5.For the above, reasons the appeal is dismissed. (INDERJEET SINGH),J(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ NAVAL KISHOR /10