SAJIV VOHRA (HUF) Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of six income -tax appeals bearing ITA Nos. 178, 179, 246, 249, 247 and 248 of 2007 which are Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in six appeals i.e. ITA Nos. 644 to 649/Asr/2004, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1996 -97 to 2001 -02, whereby the appeals filed by the assessee have been dismissed. referred to as 'the Act') in the case of Shri Sajiv Vohra, individual were issued for the asst. yrs. 1997 -98 to 2000 -01 for the reason that various investments made by him did not stand reflected in the original returns filed by him in his individual capacity. He was required to explain the investment made by him in acquisition of plot and purchase of Kisan Vikas Patras, etc. He was also asked to explain the source of deposits made by him in various bank accounts with

(2.) REASONS to believe that income had escaped assessment. In these reasons, it was stated that the assessee had made investments in KVPs, etc., in his own name and in the names of his family members and that during reassessment proceedings in the status of individual, Shri Sajiv Vohra had stated that all investments stood in the hands of his HUF. made, observing that in case Shri Vohra was able to prove the assessment (sic -investments), being in the hands of the HUF, the additions in the status of individual would be protective else they would be treated as substantive. These assessments were not challenged and they attained finality. business was the individual business of Shri Vohra. However, income was assessed in the hands of the HUF, on a protective basis since the return had been filed in the status of HUF.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who vide order dt. 22nd the hands of HUF was deleted. In the individual cases, the assessee stated that the investments stood explained in the hands of the HUF. Since the AO was of the view that investments have been made by individual and were liable to be considered in his case on substantive basis, he, therefore, made the additions in the hands of individual on substantive basis subject to rider that since assessments in the case of HUF were still pending and in case the assessee is able to explain the source of investments in the hands of HUF, the additions in the hands of individual would be protective, else they would be treated as substantive. These additions were never challenged by the assessee and achieved finality. As such, they became substantive additions. In the HUF assessment, the CIT(A) upheld the AO's findings that the assessee never had an HUF. The protective assessments in HUF status were deleted on the premises that the same income could not be assessed twice over, in the hands of the individual as well as the HUF.