IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 287 / VIZ /201 4 (ASST. YEAR : 20 08 - 0 9 ) I TO, WARD - 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. VS . PADARTHI JAGANNADHA RAO, C/O RAO & RAO HOUSING (P) LTD., RAJ RESIDENCY, NAV NIRMAN, D.NO. 54 - 15 - 6/1, KRM COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. PAN NO. AGXPP 8292 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI M.N. MURTHY NAIK SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23 / 1 0 /201 7 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 / 1 0 /201 7 . O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , VISAKHAPATNAM , DATED 21 /0 3 /201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 0 9 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS OF 48,09,500/ - BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE FIRM OF M/S. RAO & RAO CONSTRUCTIONS . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ABOVE ADDITION ON THE GROUND TH A T THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTME NT IN M/S. RAO & RAO CONSTRUCTIONS. 2 ITA NO. 287 /VIZ/2014 ( PADARTHI JAGANNADHA RAO ) 3 . ON APPEAL , LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE , DELETED THE ADDITION. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE LD.CIT(A)S ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: - 6.1 AS REGARDS THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.48,09,500/ - ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THAT THE DOUBLE ADDITION IS NOT VALID. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE APPEAL OF THE FIRM RAO & RAO CONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SUBJECT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS VIDE LETTER DTD.29.01.2014. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT SOME OF THE PROJECTS WERE EXECUTED BY THE FIRM SSS REAL ESTATES & PROMOTERS, WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUESTED TO EXAMINE AND ACCORDINGLY RE - COMPUTE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE FIRM. NO PLEA WAS TAKEN THAT THE PROJECTS WERE EXECUTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS MAY BE DELETED. 4 . ON BEING AGGRIEVED, REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, HOWEVER, A SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IS MADE IN M/S. RAO & RAO CONSTRUCTIONS. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , M/S. RAO & RAO CONSTRUCTIONS FILED AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CALLING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER , DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - COMPUTE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED IN THE HANDS OF THE M/S.RAO & RAO CONSTRUCTIONS AND THE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO ACCEPTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) , DATED 21/03/2014 IN THE CASE OF M/S.RAO & RAO CONSTRUCTIONS. 3 ITA NO. 287 /VIZ/2014 ( PADARTHI JAGANNADHA RAO ) 7 . KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE L EARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ALSO BY CONSIDERING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 2 5 T H DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 5 T H OCTOBER , 201 7 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - PADARTHI JAGANNADHA RAO, C/O RAO & RAO HOUSING (P) LTD., RAJ RESIDENCY, NAV NIRMAN, D.NO. 54 - 15 - 6/1, KRM COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD - 4(1), VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE CIT - 2, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) , VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.