DEEPAKBHAI H. AMARSEDA Vs. I.T.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Application has been filed on 4th October, 2013 and the applicant has stated that vide paragraphs 6 and 7 of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.05.2013 has confirmed protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee. However, according to this application the prayer of the applicant is that the Tribunal was required to give a final finding on the fact whether a substantive assessment should have been made in the hands of the assessee or not. Relevant portion of the M.A. is reproduced below:

(2.) THE Applicant has placed reliance on the decision of Smt. Dayabai v. CIT, : 154 ITR 248 (MP) and an another decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court pronounced in the case of Smt. Hemlata Agarwal v. CIT, : 64 ITR 428 (Alld.) for the legal proposition that the income cannot be assessed twice and that the Tribunal being a "final Court of fact" cannot make a protective order. Hence, the prayer is that the order of the Tribunal is to be modified and to give a final verdict about the correctness of the assessment made protectively in the hands of the assessee.

(3.) FROM the side of the Applicant, learned AR, Mrs. Arti N. Shah appeared and pleaded that an assessment was made on the assessee vide an order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act, dated 28.08.2008 and the income of Rs. 2,30,858/ - was assessed protectively in the hands of the assessee. The AO has also given a finding that the impugned income of Rs. 2,30,858/ - is required to be substantively added in the case of Sri Mukesh Amarsed. The Argument of Mrs. Shah is that the Tribunal being a final fact finding authority should have first ascertained the correct position of substantive assessment instead of confirming the protective assessment made in the hands of the assessee. Mrs. Shah has placed strong reliance on the order of the Smt. Hemlata Agarwal (supra).