Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT

339 ITR 210High Court2011#1047 most cited

What is Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT authority for?

A search is considered complete once the search party leaves the premises with the seized material. A restraint order under section 132(3) can only be passed if there's a practical difficulty in seizing the material.

104

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ramaiah Reddy v ACIT · 339 ITR 210 · section 132(3) · section 132 · search · restraint order · seizure of material · continuity of search · practical difficulty

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 68Section 132Section 153BSection 132(3)Section 132(8A)Section 115BBESection 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 132(2)section 132(5)section 132(3)warrant of authorisationsection 158besection 153b(1)(a)section 132(1)(a)section 153(2)section 153(1)(a)section 153b(1)section 2(31)section 53a

Judgments citing Ramaiah Reddy v. ACIT

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 338/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 337/BANG/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…

M/S K.R. Venkatesh Gowda, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2004-05, 2006-07 and 2007-08 and the Revenue’s cross appeals for Assessment

ITA 336/BANG/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Us. Revenue’S Cross Appeals For Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2007-08 Are Also Up For Consideration Before Us.

Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153A

…the Act on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Ajit Jain, reported in 260 ITR 80. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy Vs. DCIT, 339 ITR 210. 4. Without prejudice the appellant denies himself liable to be assessed over and above the total income of Rs. 2,07,430/- as reported by the appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] is not justified in making an addition of Rs 37,91,967/- as undisclosed income from profession witho…

M/S Dream Logistics Company (India) Pvtt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11

ITA 996/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 234

…and therefore the search action is illegal having regard to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and consequently the impugned assessment order ITA Nos. 995 & 996/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 12 deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 92,07,500/- in respect of certain cash payments alleged to have been made by the appellant outside the books of accounts, which…

M/S Dream Logistics Company (India) Pvtt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2010-11

ITA 995/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 234

…and therefore the search action is illegal having regard to the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210 and consequently the impugned assessment order ITA Nos. 995 & 996/Bang/2015 Page 2 of 12 deserves to be cancelled. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 92,07,500/- in respect of certain cash payments alleged to have been made by the appellant outside the books of accounts, which…

M/S Hml Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s Cross Objections for Assessment Years 2002-

ITA 83/BANG/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year M/S. Delta Infralogistics The Deputy Commissioner Of 2002-03 (Worldwide) Ltd., Income Tax, [Formerly Hml Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,] Central Circle, #202, Veekay Towers, Mangalore. Kulur Bangra Road, Kulur, Mangalore. Pan : Aaach 7083 B The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Delta Infralogistics 2003-04 Tax, (Worldwide) Ltd., Circle – 1(1), Mangalore. Mangalore. Pan : Aaach 7083 B C.O. No. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 9/Bang/2013 M/S. Delta Infralogistics The Deputy Commissioner 2003-04 (Worldwide) Ltd., Of Income Tax, (In Ita No.817/Bang/2012) Mangalore. Central Circle, Pan : Aaach 7083 B Mangalore. 10/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2004-05 (In Ita No. 818/Bang/2012) 11/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2005-06 (In Ita No.819/Bang/2012) 12/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2006-07 (In Ita No.820/Bang/2012) 13/Bang/2013 -Do- -Do- 2007-08 (In Ita No.821/Bang/2012)

For Respondent: Shri. Dilip, Jr. to Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 153A

…nt U/S.153A is null and void- ab-initio on the parity of the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. (iii) That the warrant issued in the joint names of the persons said to have been specified in the warrant is bad in law to initiate search in the individual cases of the several persons whose names are specified in the warrant although a joint warrant had to be issued in all the names of the occupants of the premises to seize their records, if…

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…orrectness of additions made, based on the certain seized material. 4. Validity of Search Action. 4.1 On the issue of validity of the search, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (339 ITR 210) (Kar) and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. Vs. DDIT wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under :- “ The petitioners have approached this Court only on the ground that under section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to examine the validity…

Ambika Ghorpade, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2009-10

ITA 827/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234ASection 234B

…pronouncements cited and the other material on record. On the issue of validity of search in Ground NO.6 (supra), it was contended that the issue be decided in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (339 ITR 210) and that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. Vs. DDIT. 3.5.2 We are, however, not inclined to adjudicate this issue raised in Ground NO.6 in the light of the recent amendment in Finance Act, 2017 to Sec. 132 of the Act by which the Tribunal is precluded from examining this issue and, therefore, decline to go into t…

Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

…ronouncements cited and the other material on record. On the issue of validity of search in Ground No.7 (supra), it was contended that the issue be decided in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (339 ITR 210) and that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. Vs. DDIT. 16.2 We are, however, not inclined to adjudicate this issue raised in Ground No.7 in the light of the recent amendment in Finance Act, 2017 to Sec. 132 of the Act by which the Tribunal is precluded from examining search action. The ITAT is a creation of statute…

Bharat Mine and Minerals, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 738/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69

…pronouncements cited and the other material on record. On the issue of validity of search in Ground No.7 (supra), it was contended that the issue be decided in accordance with the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (339 ITR 210) and that of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. Vs. DDIT. 5.2 We are, however, not inclined to adjudicate this issue raised in Ground No.7 and Ground No.6 in the light of the recent amendment in Finance Act, 2017 to Sec. 132 of the Act by which the Tribunal is precluded from examining this issue and, therefore, decline…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

…sessee may be rejected in the interest of justice and equity.” 5. Ground No.7 - Validity of Search. 5.1 On the issue of validity of the search, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy (339 ITR 210) (Kar) and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ess Dee Aluminium Ltd. Vs. DDIT wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under :- “ The petitioners have approached this Court only on the ground that under section 246A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to examine the validity…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2111/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2110/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2109/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2108/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2107/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2106/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2105/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2019/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R.Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2018/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ntly illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio having regard to the parity of the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of AJITH JAIN reported in 260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,20,60,000/- being the aggregate cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant, which was not an incriminating seized material at all but one obtained from the bank in ITA Nos. 2013 to 2019 & 2105 to 2111/Bang/2017 Page 3 of 38 the pos…