YESLUR GANGADHARAPPA VASANTH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3)(5), BANGALORE

ITA 1575/BANG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 September 2026AY 2011-127 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation for ₹11,65,500 of the deposit, comprising ₹8,65,500 from property sale and ₹3,00,000 from earlier bank withdrawals. However, for the balance amount, the assessee provided no evidence for the claimed sale of wife's jewellery or loans from friends and relatives. The Tribunal noted that while the cash-flow statement showed opening cash on hand of ₹15,57,500, a satisfactory source for this substantial balance was not established. Consequently, the issue concerning the balance deposit, over and above ₹11,65,500, was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification. The assessee was directed to provide names and addresses of lenders, dates and amounts of cash loans, and supporting evidence for jewellery sale within 90 days. The AO was to verify this evidence and decide the issue afresh. Ground no. 2 was partly allowed. Regarding ground no. 8, the Tribunal directed the AO not to invoke section 115BBE for AY 2011-12 as it was not in force or applicable. Other grounds were dismissed as not argued or pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yeslur Gangadharappa Vasanth Kumar, is appealing an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2011-12. The appeal challenges the addition of ₹15,56,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO treated cash deposits in the assessee's bank account as unexplained investment under section 69. The assessee initially did not file a return despite AIR information showing salary income. After a notice under section 148, the assessee filed a return declaring total income. AIR information also revealed cash deposits of ₹15,56,600. Despite notices seeking bank statements and supporting evidence, the assessee did not respond, leading to the AO's addition. The CIT(A) upheld this addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹15,56,000 as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is justified? Assessee's contentions: - The deposits were explained by sale proceeds of wife's gold jewellery, borrowings from friends and relatives, and earlier withdrawals from savings and salary income. - The CIT(A) failed to appreciate these explanations and did not grant an effective opportunity to substantiate the sources. - The addition was based on presumptions without material evidence. - Section 115BBE is not applicable to AY 2011-12. - Section 69A applies only when books of account are maintained, which the assessee did not. - Relied on a land sale deed dated 06.05.2010 showing cash consideration of ₹10,20,000 corresponding to a bank deposit. Revenue's contentions: - The assessee deposited cash of ₹15,56,600 but failed to explain its source. - The assessee could not substantiate the source before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition is not infirm.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCHES, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

PER SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT

1.

This appeal arises from the order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A), Jodhpur, for AY 2011-12, dismissing the assessee’s appeal against the assessment order dated 27.12.2018 passed under ITA 1575/BANG/2026 YESLUR GANGADHARAPPA VASANTH KUMAR

section 14

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →