BINDU GURURAJ,SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE, BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.: 3137/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner of Bindu Gururaj Income-Tax A-1402, Mantri Greens, Sampige Road, International Taxation Malleshwaram, Bangalore Vs. Circle – 1(1) 560003 Bangalore PAN: BNJPG3862M APPLICANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Sri. Sandeep. C, CA : Smt. Divya K.J, CIT-DR Revenue by

Date of Hearing : 01-06-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 04-06-2026

ORDER PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 23.10.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12, Bengaluru [“Ld. CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2019-20.

Page 1 of 3

IT(IT)A No.:3137/Bang/2025 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction and therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 3. That the proceedings u/s. 147 are bad in law, without jurisdiction and therefore, the assessment order is liable to be quashed. 4. That the notice u/s 148 is bad in law as the same is issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of faceless assessing officer. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in not considering that the notice issued u/s. 148 is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 6. Unexplained investment u/s. 69 - Rs. 4,54,43,510 6.1. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in invoking provisions of section 69 of the Act and making an addition of Rs. 4,54,43,510/- even though the sources of all the investments and deposits are already available on record. 6.2. That the learned lower authorities erred in law and on facts in holding that the entire deposits of Rs. 3,01,59,487/- is to be treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act even though the time deposits are made out of the above deposits and therefore, leads to double addition. 6.3. That the learned lower authorities ought to have verified the appellant return of income filed for preceding year which is a self-explanatory for sources of all investments. 3. During the hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), vide impugned order, set aside the assessment order dated 28.05.2024 passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, as the same was passed on a best judgment basis due to non-compliance of notices issued during the scrutiny proceedings by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that, since the matter has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, the assessee seeks leave not to press the grounds raised on merits. The Ld. AR further submitted that the

Page 2 of 3

IT(IT)A No.:3137/Bang/2025 remaining grounds pertain to the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act be kept open with a liberty to raise in the second round of proceedings. Accordingly, the Ld. AR sought leave to withdraw the present appeal filed by the assessee.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 4th June, 2026. *VM* Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. CIT(A) By order

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore

Page 3 of 3