{"id":8190,"date":"2014-07-23T16:21:44","date_gmt":"2014-07-23T10:51:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=8190"},"modified":"2014-07-23T16:21:44","modified_gmt":"2014-07-23T10:51:44","slug":"g-k-consultants-limited-vs-ito-itat-delhi-s-147-retracted-statement-cannot-form-the-basis-of-reopening-protective-assessment-without-substantive-assessment-is-not-permissible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/g-k-consultants-limited-vs-ito-itat-delhi-s-147-retracted-statement-cannot-form-the-basis-of-reopening-protective-assessment-without-substantive-assessment-is-not-permissible\/","title":{"rendered":"G.K. Consultants Limited vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=1303\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=1303&varname2=GK_147_protective_assmt.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (GK_147_protective_assmt.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 147: Retracted statement cannot form the basis of reopening. Protective assessment without substantive assessment is not permissible<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>(i) The statement of Shri Subodh Gupta, CA. was recorded during the course of survey in his personal capacity. The statement was later retracted. A retracted statement recorded during survey cannot be a basis of assumption of jurisdiction u\/s 147 of the Act (<strong>Dr. R.N. Thippa Shetty<\/strong> 322 ITR 525 (Del) followed);<\/p>\n<p>(ii) The AO has not made any specific allegations against the assessee. He intended to make a protective assessment on the assessee. However, while there can be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment, there cannot be a protective assessment\/addition without a substantive assessment\/addition. As no substantive assessment\/addition was made in the hands of Subodh Gupta, the protective reassessment assessment on the assessee is not permissible (<strong>M.P. Ramachandaran<\/strong> 32 SOT 592 (Mum) &#038; <strong>Suresh K Jajoo<\/strong> 39 SOT 514 (Mum) followed).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 147: Retracted statement cannot form the basis of reopening. Protective assessment without substantive assessment is not permissible<\/strong> <\/p>\n<p>(ii) The AO has not made any specific allegations against the assessee. He intended to make a protective assessment on the assessee. However, while there can be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment, there cannot be a protective assessment\/addition without a substantive assessment\/addition. As no substantive assessment\/addition was made in the hands of Subodh Gupta, the protective reassessment assessment on the assessee is not permissible (<strong>M.P. Ramachandaran<\/strong> 32 SOT 592 (Mum) &#038; <strong>Suresh K Jajoo<\/strong> 39 SOT 514 (Mum) followed)<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/g-k-consultants-limited-vs-ito-itat-delhi-s-147-retracted-statement-cannot-form-the-basis-of-reopening-protective-assessment-without-substantive-assessment-is-not-permissible\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8190","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8190\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}