ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI V. MULLIAMBAL RATHNASAMY PITCHAKANNU ERAAVANAN, CHENNAI

ITA 1810/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a dispute concerning a protective assessment made by the Assessing Officer (AO) against Shri. P. Eraavanan, who was a power agent and not the actual owner of the property sold. The AO made a protective assessment in the hands of the assessee due to the non-production of the actual owner, Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar, citing his old age and illness. The Tribunal examined whether a protective assessment can be made without a corresponding substantive assessment and found that it cannot, referencing several judicial precedents. The Tribunal agreed with the ld. CIT(A) that the protective assessment was not maintainable as no substantive assessment was made against the actual owner, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objections.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 107457 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Other Referred Cases: Lalji Haridas v. ITO, ITO VS M/s Fussy Financial Services Pvt ltd, Shri. Pravinkumar Valjibhai vs ITO ward 2, Suresh. K. Jajoe vs ACIT, Pegasus Property (Pvt) Ltd vs DCIT, ITO, ward 1/Nagaon vs Keshava Nanda Kabti
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. SUNDAR RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: C. KHATHIRAVAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Capital asset; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 131; 43; 2

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’बी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In ITA No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Investigation Building, Chennai. Vs. Shri Arvind E and Mrs. Baskaravalli (Legal Heir of Late Shri MRP Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [PAN:AAAPE5554D] (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. At the outset, the ld. DR Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CIT drew our attention to additional grounds raised by the Appellant – Revenue. He submits that the order of the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous on facts of the case I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 2 and in law. The ld. CIT(A), knowing well the fact of death of the assessee i.e., Mulliyambal Rathnasamy Pitchauikannu Eraavanan, passed the impugned order on deceased person and drew our attention to para 6.1 of the impugned order. The ld. DR vehemently argued that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is null and void ab initio and prayed to set aside the same. The ld. DR drew our attention to the relief claimed and prayed to restore the order of the Assessing Officer. 3. The ld. AR Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate submits that the instant additional grounds are being raised against the jurisdictional issue by the Appellant – Revenue. He submits that the Revenue erroneously contended that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is a nullity solely on the ground that it has been passed in the name of the deceased person and it is a settled principle of law that the order passed in the name of deceased person do not automatically become void, provided that the legal representative is available to continue the proceedings in accordance with section 159 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. He drew our attention to sub-section 2 of section 159 of the Act and submits that the statute expressly provides that where a person dies before any proceeding is taken against them under the Act, such proceeding may be continued against the legal representative of the I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 3 deceased person. The said provision ensures that rights and obligations of the deceased assessee do not abate merely due to their demise and the legal representative is bound to discharge the pending obligations. 4. Further, he submits that it is pertinent to note that the practical aspect of the adjudication process while the cause title of the proceedings is automatically generated based on system data linked to the PAN of the assessee. Such procedural mechanism, which relies on pre-existing records, does not imply any legal infirmity in the order itself. Further, he vehemently argued that in the absence of legal heirs’ name in the cause title does not render the adjudication erroneous, particularly when their participation in the proceedings has been duly acknowledged. He contends that the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, who have subjected and bound themselves to the impugned proceedings, thereby, satisfying the condition under section 159 of the Act. He argued that it is a settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, which have consistently adopted this dictum, that a decree against a deceased person is treated as a nullity only if the legal representative was never brought on record and was deprived of the opportunity to defend the case. The fundamental rationale behind this principle is that fastening I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 4 liability upon a legal representative without affording them a hearing would be impermissible and contrary to the principles of natural justice. 5. The ld. AR further submits that the law does not prohibit a legal representative from electing to proceed with the case without raising a technical plea of nullity and that it remains within their discretion to either raise an objection that the decree is a nullity at the appropriate stage of proceedings or abandon such a technical objection and contest the case on merits, either due to confidence in their legal position, strategic reasons or to avoid a procedural impasse. He further submits that the legal representative has actively participated in the proceedings and therefore, there is no legal infirmity in continuing the case even if the deceased person’s name remains on record. By referring to the Revenue’s additional ground, he argued that the impugned order is a nullity per se is misconceived, as the option to treat the proceedings as void or to continue them lies with the legal representative of the deceased person. When the legal representative is available to continue the proceedings, the mere mis-description in the name of the deceased person does not vitiate the impugned order. He referred to the doctrine of “actus curiae neminem gravabit” and argued that an act of the Court shall prejudice no one, is squarely applicable and the impugned order should I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 5 not be rendered void on a mere technical ground when substantive justice has been served. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that there is no clear finding on the date of death of the assessee in the impugned order nor in the submissions of the ld. DR. It is true fact that the ld. CIT(A) recorded the death of the assessee and acknowledged filing of copy of legal heirs’ certificate, the contention of the Appellant – Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) having knowing fully, passed the impugned order in the name of the deceased person. The ld. AR submits that the ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order by fulfilling the condition stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 159 of the Act and there is no flaw in the appellate order. He argued that the legal representative was willing to continue the proceedings by actively participating in the proceedings and therefore, there is no legal infirmity in continuing the case. On perusal of sub-section (2) of section 159 of the Act, which ensures the rights and obligations of the deceased person do not abate merely due to their demise and the legal representative is bound to discharge the pending obligations. We find force in the arguments of the ld. AR and it is a settled principle of law that the proceedings in the name of deceased person do not automatically become void provided the legal I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 6 heirs is available to continue the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of section 159 of the Act. In the present case also, the legal representative i.e., wife & son of the deceased assessee participated in the appellate proceedings and contested the case against the addition made by the Assessing Officer, which clearly shows that the legal representative was ready to prosecute the case of the deceased assessee and challenged the order passed by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, satisfying the conditions as provided under sub-section (2) of section 159 of the Act. 7. With regard to mention of name of the deceased assessee in the cause title makes the impugned order null and void, the ld. AR brought to our notice the practical aspect of adjudication process stating that the cause title of the proceeding is automatically generated based on system data linked to the PAN of the assessee. This procedural mechanism, which relies on pre-existing records, which is not disputed by the ld. DR and the ld. AR. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Assessing Officer while the deceased assessee was alive vide Form No. 35, wherein, there is no dispute with regard to this aspect, which clearly shows the name of deceased assessee in Column “address to which notice may be sent”. Therefore, this procedural I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 7 mechanism in generating cause title is based on system linked with PAN of the assessee. We find no intervention in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in making cause title in the automatically generated system data. Therefore, in our opinion, the mention of deceased assessee’s name in the cause title has any legal infirmity in vitiating the impugned order. Thus, the additional ground raised by the Appellant – Revenue is dismissed. 8. On merits, the Appellant – Revenue raised 2 grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition, which was protectively made by the Assessing Officer in the facts and circumstances of the case. The ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue in detail and the same is reproduced herein below for ready reference: 6.1 The AR during the course of Appellate Proceedings has brought to the notice of the undersigned that the Appellant had passed away and the appeal of the Appellant is now pursued by the (Late) Appellant’s son and mother. The AR also has filed the copy of Death certificate and Legal Heir Certificate. 6.2 The undersigned after having examined the assessment order passed by the AO, the written submission and additional written submission made substantiating the grounds of appeal and the additional grounds of appeal, the remand report of the AO and the rejoinder to remand report, the various grounds and additional grounds raised are adjudicated here as under: 6.3 At the outset, before going to adjudicate the various grounds raised, it is essential to bring on record the background that necessitated the AO to contemplate protective addition in the hands of the Appellant. 6.4 The Appellant filed return of income for the AY 2009-10 by admitting an income of Rs. 7,86,290/- on 31.03.2010. The return of the Appellant was selected under CASS by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 06.09.2010. The AO on the basis of information already with the department that the assessee had sold I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 8 Immovable property for Rs. 9,58,38,600/- called for details by issuing notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. 6.5 During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee responded to the notice that he as a Power Agent of Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar sold a property consisting of land and building in Patta No. 1715 to the extent of 4.56Acres in Survey No. 411/4 to 7 (Old survey No. 411/3) to Shri. Sethupathy. The AO summoned Shri. Sethupathy and recorded a statement u/s 131 of the Act. Shri. Sethupathy in the statement recorded admitted that the purchase consideration was paid to Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar. 6.6 The AO thereafter asked the assessee to produce Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar to verify the statement of Shri. Sethupathy. The assessee could not produce Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar before the AO on account of old age and illiness. The AO completed the assessment by disallowing the benefit of Cost of Indexation and the Long Term Capital Gain arising out of sale proceeds of Rs. 9,58,38,600/- in the hands of Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar was assessed protectively in the hands of the assessee and passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2011. 6.7 In this back drop the original grounds and additional grounds raised are taken up for adjudication, Now on examination of the original grounds and the additional grounds raised by the Appellant, it can be seen that the grounds raised revolves around the core issue of making a protective addition in the hands of Appellant. 6.8 During the course of Appellate Proceedings the AR made the following written submission, the relevant extract of the same is reproduced here as under :- \"The Appellant is only a Power Agent of Mr. Thangarajan Nadar as per General Power of Attorney dt 15/02/2008 registered as Doc. No. 221/2008 appointed to sell 10 Gr and 322 sq. ft of land at 110 GST Road, Zamin Pallavaram Vilage, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District comprising old survey No 411/3, New Survey No. 411/4 to 7. The Power of Attorney executed is not supported by any consideration and the said attorney shall be able to render full and proper account to the owner M: Thangarajan Nadar. The purchaser Mr.Sethuprakasam was summoned u/s 131 and statement was recorded. The copy of the statement was not provided to the Appellant The AO has stated that Mr.Sethuprakasam (wrongly mentioned as sethupathy has admitted that he had purchased The land from Mr. Thangarajan Nadar, whereas a dispute has happened between Mr. Thangarajan Nadar and Mr Sedhupathy. He had paid some advance earlier to Thangarajan Nadar. But Mr. Thangarajan had refused to register the property. Hence, a common friend Mr. Eraavanan was engaged and Mr. Thangarajan Nadar accepted to register the said property. For that Mr. Thangarajan Nadar had gave a power to Mr.Eraavanan to sell the said property and also he stated that the amount was given only to Mr. Thangarajan Nadar. Hence, no amount was given to Mr.Eraavanan. As a friend of Mr.Sethupathy, the assessee Mr.Eraavanan was engaged in this activity and hence no amount was paid by way of commission/brokerage to Mr. Eraavanan. I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 9 The AO has stated that the Appellant has sold 4.56 acres as a power agent. But actually out of this only 10 Grand 322 sq ft was sold by the Appellant as a power agent. He has also not given the details of sale deed and how he has arrived at the sale consideration at Rs. 9,58,38,600/-. And the assessing officer has added the entire sum of Rs. 9,58,38,600/- to the assessment of the Appellant as capital gain. He has not given any workings for capital gain. From this it is clear that the assessing officer has not applied his mind and the assessment was completed hurriedly. The entire order is erroneous and wrong assessment is made on the assessee. The details of sale are given in a separate annexure along with copies of Sale Deeds executed by the Power Agent and the copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 16th February 2008 executed by the land owner in favour of the Appellant. The AO has not taken any steps to summon the real owner and to make a substantial assessment in the hands of the person really assessable, even though the assessment details of the real owner were available with him.\" 6.9 It can be seen that, during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO after recording statement u/s 131 of the Act from the buyer has brought on record in the order passed the following with regard to the transaction relating the said land property, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced here as under- “During the course of hearing, the assessee stated that he sold the property is Land and building at No. 110 GST Read, Chrompet, Chennai 44 in Patta No. 1715 to the extent of 4.56 acres in Survey No.411/4 to 7 (Old Survey No.411/3) as a power agent of one Mr. R. Thangarajan Nadar to Mr. Sethupathy The purchaser Mr. Sethupathy was summoned and a statement was recorded u/s 131. In his statement Mr. Sethupathy admitted that he had purchased the land from Mr. Thangarajan Nadar, whereas a dispute has happened between Mr. Thangarajan Nadar and Mr. Sethupathy. He had paid some advance earlier to Mr. Thangarajan Nadar. But Mr. Thangarajan had refused to register the property. Hence, a common friend Mr. Eraavanan was engaged and Mr. Thangarajan Nadar accepted to register the said property. For that Mr. Thangarajan Nadar had gave a power to Mr. Eraavanan to sell the said property and also he stated that the amount was given only to Mr. Thangarajan Nadar. Hence, no amount was given to Mr Eraavanan. As a friend of Mr. Sethupathy, the assessee Mr. Eravanan was engaged in this activity and hence no amount was paid by way of commission/brokerage to Mr. Eravanan.\" 6.10 From the above observation made by the AO in the assessment order it is clear that the buyer of the land has paid the consideration to the owner of the property i.e. Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar. The AO after having consciously observed that the Appellant has not received the sale consideration has chosen to make the addition in the hands of the Appellant by observing as under- \"The assessee Shri Eravanan was asked to produce Mr. Thangarajan Nadar for verifying the statement given by Mr. Sethupathy. The assessee stated that due to old age and illness of Mr. Thangarajan I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 10 Nadar, he was at present not able to produce him before the Department, but will be produced before the completion of the assessment. Upto 30.12.2011, no statement or letter or personal appearance of Mr. Thangarajan Nadar was effected by Mr. Eravanan. As no details of purchase deed and other details were furnished by the assessee, the benefit of Cost Inflation Index is not provided. Hence, Long Term Capital Gains arising out of the sale proceeds of Rs. 9,58,38,600/- in the hands of Mr. Thangarajan Nadar was assessed protectively in the hands of the assessee Mr. P. Eraavanan 6.11 From the above observation of the AO it can be seen that the AO has attempted to make the addition in the hands of the Appellant protectively but failed to make any substantive addition in the hands of Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar who is the owner of the property and the person who received the sale consideration. 6.12 It may be appreciated that a Protective assessment is a precautionary assessment and there exists no specific provision in the Act for the purpose of making a protective assessment. However, now it is well-settled by judicial precedent that in order to protect the interest of the revenue, protective assessment can be made. The concept of protective assessment', was explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387, while dealing with this issue, their Lordships have observed as follows: “................In cases where it appears to the IT authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant assessment year but it is not clear who has received that income and prima facie it appears that the income may have been received either by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant IT authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B.\" 6.13 From the above decision, it can be stated that the AO can make protective assessment, Now the issue before the undersigned is that whether a protective assessment can be made without there being the corresponding substantive assessment or not. 6.14 The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench had an occasion to adjudicate this issue in the case of ITO VS M/s Fussy Financial Services Pvt ltd vide its order in ITA No. 4227/DEL/2014 dated 05.06.2017 wherein the Hon'ble tribunal has held that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. 6.15 Further in the case of Shri. Pravinkumar Valjibhai vs ITO ward 2 (ITA no. 142/2016.), Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench has held that \"in the absence of substantive assessment the protective assessment cannot survive and the protective assessment framed by AO without making the substantive assessment is not sustainable.\" 6.16 A similar view was taken by Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Suresh. K. Jajoe vs ACIT (39 SOT 514) as under: - I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 11 \"Protective assessment has to be done only after substantive assessment is done. An assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment. The substantive assessment has to precede protective assessment\" 6.17 In the case of Pegasus Property (Pvt) Ltd vs DCIT (193 ITD 514), Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench has held as under \"since no substantiate addition was made, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee does not survive\". 6.18 In the case of ITO, ward 1/Nagaon vs Keshava Nanda Kabti(2021) 133 taxmann.com.316, Hon'ble ITAT Guwahati Bench has held as under In the absence of substantive addition made in the hands of any other person protective assessment cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee\" 6.19 From the above judicial precedents, it can be seen that it is well settled in law that there cannot be a protective assessment without any substantive assessment. In the instant case the AO has not brought on record about the corresponding substantive addition made. Thus it is understood that as per records no corresponding substantive addition was made. 6.20 It is appropriate to bring on record that the AO after having summoned the buyer and ascertained the details of transaction, more particularly the payment of sale consideration that was made by the buyer to the owner of the property i.e. Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar, the AO did not make any effort to tax the Capital Gains arising out of the sale transaction in the hands of the seller i.e. Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar. Further the AO has not brought on record of any corroborative and cogent evidence to prove that the assessee was in receipt of the sale consideration to substantiate the information already held with the department. 6.21 The AO in the order passed has simply narrated that the assessee could not produce Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar before the AO. Even though there are multiple avenues available before the AO to ascertain the particulars of the person who has actually received the sale consideration and tax the corresponding capital gains substantively has failed to do so. On account of this failure on the part of the AO, to make efforts in bringing to tax the Capital gains arising out of the transaction relating to sale of the said property substantively in the hands of Shri. R. Thangarajan Nadar, the undersigned is not inclined to sustain the addition made protectively without their being any corresponding substantive addition, Further, the Appellant is not the owner of the Capital Asset, he was just the power holder only, more particularly, even the sale consideration for the transfer of the capital asset was not received by the Appellant, thus tax on the capital gains arising out of transfer of the said capital asset cannot be levied upon the Appellant. Accordingly all the grounds raised by the Appellant are hereby treated as allowed and the AO is directed to delete the protective addition of Rs. 9,58,38,600/-made for the AY 2009- 10. 7. In the result the appeal is treated as allowed. I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 12 9. We note that on an information regarding sale of immovable property of the assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act seeking the details. The assessee appeared and stated that he is a power agent of one Mr. Thangarajan Nadar sold the property to one Mr. Sethupathy. The Assessing Officer recorded statement under section 131 of the Act of Mr. Sethupathy, wherein, it was stated that he purchased land from Mr. Thangarajan Nadar and paid sale consideration also to Mr. Thangarajan Nadar, which is evident from para 3 of the assessment order. Further, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce Mr. Thangarajan Nadar to verify the statement of Mr. Sethupathy. The assessee stated his inability to produce Mr. Thangarajan Nadar because of old age and illness. For having no appearance of Mr. Thangarajan Nadar, the Assessing Officer assessed capital gains in the hands of the assessee protectively on behalf of Mr. Thangarajan Nadar. The ld. CIT(A), by placing reliance on the orders of the Tribunal, held no protective assessment is maintainable in the absence of substantive assessment in the hands of Mr. Thangarajan Nadar. When confronted, the ld. DR reported that no substantive assessment was made, but, however, referred to letter dated 27.01.2022 addressed to the ld. CIT(A) by the DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai requesting the ld. CIT(A) to consider the said impugned protective I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 13 assessment as substantive assessment. Thy ld. DR argued that this Tribunal may consider the said letter in treating the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee as substantive assessment. The ld. AR vehemently opposed the same contending that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to issue such letter requesting the ld. CIT(A) to consider the protective assessment as substantive assessment and there is no provision exist in the Act enabling the Assessing Officer to write such letter to the first appellate authority. We find force in the arguments of the ld. AR and of the considered opinion that no provision exists in the Income Tax Act giving power to the Assessing Officer to write letter to the first appellate authority. Therefore, the argument of the ld. DR regarding the request of the Assessing Officer to the ld. CIT(A) to consider and treat the protective assessment as substantive assessment is rejected. 10. Coming to the impugned order, we note that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail, the reasons and findings, which were reproduced herein above. On perusal of the above, we note that the ld. CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail regarding the assessment order, statement of assessee and statement of Mr. Sethupathy as well as orders of Delhi Benches, Ahmedabad Benches and Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal and held that no protective assessment survive in the absence of I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 14 substantive assessment. We agree with the reasons recorded by the ld. CIT(A) and are justified. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the Appellant – Revenue are dismissed. C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 11 In view of our decision in Revenue’s appeal, wherein, we confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that the protective assessment is bad in law, consequently, the Cross Objection arising out of the said Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 1810/Chny/2024 becomes academic and dismissed accordingly. 12. In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on 26th February, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 26.02.2025 Vm/- I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 15 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. "