SRIDHARA MURTHY SUBRAMANYASETTY SOVENAHALLI,DAVANAGERE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE, DAVANAGERE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 257/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not represent his case before the CIT(A) despite opportunities. The assessee's representative undertook to file explanations and documents if the case was remitted. The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the order of the Principal CIT(A). The assessee contended that the assessment order was passed without basis and evidence, and that the survey conducted on his brother's premises was wrongly linked to him. The assessee also claimed the CIT(A) did not consider his responses and submitted evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was passed without proper evidence and opportunity to be heard, and if the survey conducted on a related party was wrongly attributed to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY

For Appellant: CA Ramana Gowda, A.R
Hearing: 03.06.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal CIT (A)-11, Bengaluru dated 18.11.2025 vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2025-26/1082723154(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.257/Bang/2026 Sridhara Murthy Subramanyasetty Sovenahalli, Davanagere Page 2 of 4

Tax effect relating Gr. to each ground of Grounds of Appeal No. appeal (see note below) 1 The order of Ld. CIT A and AO is opposed to the law, facts Rs. 0 and circumstances of the case. The order of the Ld. CIT A is opposed to the various court 2 decisions which is favoring the appellant is against the law Rs. 0 and natural justice. The Ld. CIT A erred in upholding the impugned assessment order without any basis and supported by the evidence found and impounded during the survey conducted u/s. 133A of the Act in the business premises of the brother and it is not 3 Rs. 5086242 connected to the appellant. However, survey provisions are invoked, and statements are recorded of the appellant as it is evident from the assessment order passed for the AY 2016- 17. The Ld. Authority comparing the actual vs. estimated WHARE there are no documents which are relating to 4 Rs. 0 unaccounted transactions found and impounded during the conduct of the survey under section 133A of the Act. The Ld. Authority erred in estimating at 25 percent on the valuation made by the DVO. The DVO erred in valuing the 5 under construction building and detailed valuation. The Rs. 0 detailed valuation is obtained by the appellant which is submitted before the CIT A and the same is not considered. The Ld. CIT A erred in not considering the appellants responses submitted on 09.12.2021 and other details 6 Rs. 0 submitted during the hearing without finding out the Deficiency and seeking the same. The order is passed by the AO in haste, without providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity of being heard and not 7 following the instructions of the CBDT Circular by not Rs. 0 issuing the show cause notice, violating the principle of natural justice and is thus liable to be quashed. The appellant prays that the relief prayed for may kindly be allowed and the order of the CIT A and AO may kindly be 8 quashed, set aside, annulled 0R modified and DLEETE the Rs. 0 additions made in the impugned order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute, 9 modification, substitution, withdrawal and DLEETE any 0R Rs. 0 all the grounds of appeal urged above.

ITA No.257/Bang/2026 Sridhara Murthy Subramanyasetty Sovenahalli, Davanagere Page 3 of 4

Total Tax Effect Rs. 50,86,242

3.

Before us, both the parties fairly conceded that the assessee could not represent his case before the ld. PCIT(A)-11, Bengaluru despite providing several opportunities of being heard. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee undertakes to file explanation along with the supporting documents/evidences if the case of the assessee is remitted back to the file of the ld. PCIT(A)-11, Bengaluru for fresh consideration in the interest of justice & fair play. This being so, in our opinion, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play and as requested by the ld. A.R. of the assessee, we deem it fit & proper to remit the entire issues in dispute to the file of ld. PCIT(A)-11, Bengaluru for deciding afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents/records/evidences/submissions to substantiate his claim. We make it clear that in case of further default, the assessee shall not be entitled for any leniency. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 31st July, 2026. VG/SPS

ITA No.257/Bang/2026 Sridhara Murthy Subramanyasetty Sovenahalli, Davanagere Page 4 of 4

Copy to:

1.

The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →